Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered upon Tuesday 28 October.

LONDON TRANSPORT (No. 2) BILL

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [6 August].

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the London Transport (No. 2) Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House;

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect

of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the British Railways Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session of their intention to suspend further proceedings and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That on the fifth day on which the House sits in the next Session the Bill shall be presented to the House;

Ordered,
That there shall be deposited with the Bill a Declaration signed by the Agents for the Bill stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in the House in the present Session:

Ordered,
That the Bill shall be laid upon the Table of the House by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office on the next meeting of the House after the day on which the Bill has been presented and, when so laid, shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and, having been amended by the Committee in the present Session, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

To be communicated to the Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.

DUNDEE PORT AUTHORITY CONFIRMATION BILL

Lords amendment agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I give a cautionary word to the House. Long supplementary questions cut out opportunities for other hon. Members.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Enterprise Zone (Belfast)

Mr. Molyneaux: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give a progress report on consultations on the proposal to establish an enterprise zone in Belfast.

The Under Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Philip Goodhart): The matter was debated in the Northern Ireland Committee on 16 July. Apart from seeking the views of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, I have also contacted the main political parties in the Province, the Belfast city council and 25 industrial, professional and trade bodies. There is widespread support for the idea of an enterprise zone in Northern Ireland and I have received a number of representations on the boundaries of a zone and other matters. I am considering these comments.

Mr. Molyneaux: Will the Minister examine the possibility of spreading the advantages a little more thinly over the Greater Belfast area? If that idea is rejected will he examine the possibility of enlarging the zone from the proposed 100 acre to 500 acres as suggested by his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so as to include existing companies such as Mackies?

Mr. Goodhart: During the debate a number of hon. Members suggested that the zone should be extended to 500 acres although I understand that the average size of an enterprise zone in Great Britain will be about 250 acres. I am considering those representations.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Has the Minister received representations from Carrickfergus borough council about the possibility of a zone in the Carrickfergus area in view of the near close-down of Courtaulds there?

Mr. Goodhart: I have been in contact with Carrickfergus district council on this matter and I expect to receive its views in the near future.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is not the idea of a limited enterprise zone nonsense? Is the Minister aware that it has certainly not received much support in Northern Ireland, bearing in mind that the whole of Northern Ireland is a depressed area which needs massive support from a Government who are engaging in savage cuts? Does he realise that a major factor is the high overdraft rate in Northern Ireland, which is I per cent. to 1½ per cent. higher than in the rest of Great Britain?

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Not to Mr. De Lorean.

Mr. Goodhart: There was an announcement yesterday extending the amount of Government support to the Northern Ireland economy. We have calculated the cost of extending an enterprise zone to the whole of Northern Ireland and the cost of the rating concession alone would be about £56 million. That is almost precisely equal to the support recently announced for Harland and Wolff and De Lorean.

Mr. Pendry: Has the Minister received any representation from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to the effect that Northern Ireland should forgo the proposed zone in view of its hyper-inflationary nature? If he has, will he reject that plea and instead concentrate his mind on the constructive suggestions which have been made today? Is not a single zone of 200 acres too small to affect the economic infrastructure of the city of Belfast? Will the hon. Gentleman reconsider that aspect?

Mr. Goodhart: The proposal is not supposed to transform the entire position in Belfast. It is proposed to revitalise one area of Belfast in which there is considerable urban dilapidation. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who addressed the Northern Ireland Committee on this subject, can make his own views known.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Minister aware that those who criticised my speech in support of the Government in the censure debate are now dismayed to discover


that the Government intend to spend more and not less in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Goodhart: I agree.

Housing Executive

Mr. Wm. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans to restructure the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

Mr. Goodhart: No, Sir.

Mr. Ross: Is not the Minister aware that since the Housing Executive was set up it has managed to provide fewer than 5,000 new dwellings a year? Is not that a far smaller number than was provided by the former housing authorities in Northern Ireland? Would it not be wise to restructure the board of the Housing Executive so that it might more fully reflect the opinions of the electors in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Goodhart: A majority of the members of the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are members of district councils. As the hon. Member knows, since the Northern Ireland Housing Executive came into existence the building programme in his constituency has been exceedingly large. Looking at the number of houses built in Londonderry and comparing it with the numbers in towns of approximately the same size in North-West England, one sees that Londonderry is about five times better off.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister confirm what he said just now, which was that the majority of the board of the Housing Executive were members of district councils? Will he give the House the breakdown of the board of the Housing Executive?

Mr. Goodhart: Five of the eight members of the present board—because there is one vacancy—are members of district councils.

Car Bombs

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if his Department is satisfied with the security forces' liability to protect the community of Northern Ireland from bombs left in stationary vehicles; how many bombs have exploded while in

stationary, vehicles; and how many people have been injured or killed as a result so far in the current year.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): Neither I nor the security forces can be satisfied so long as anybody is killed or injured through terrorist violence, but the security forces make every effort to prevent the use of car bombs and to detect and disarm them when they are planted.
So far this year, 19 such devices have exploded in stationary vehicles. Two people have died as a result and 24 have been injured. A further seven devices have been neutralised by the security forces; I would like to pay tribute to the Army's bomb disposal teams whose courage and skill continue to save lives.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that very full and detailed reply. However, does he agree that the security position in the border areas of Northern Ireland is far from satisfactory and that little or no improvement has occurred during the past 12 months, despite the valiant efforts of our security forces? Does he also agree that there appears to be an assassination campaign against leading citizens in these areas, not least in Fermanagh? I remind right hon. and hon. Members of the dreadful and horrific car bomb explosion in Lisnaskea recently. What additional action can my right hon. Friend take to protect leading citizens from this campaign of assassination?

Mr. Atkins: I said in my original reply that none of us could be satisfied so long as anyone was killed. I take issue with my hon. Friend about what has happened over the past year. I have a more detailed answer to give about the security situation later, and I will not anticipate that. I say at this stage merely that I do not agree with my hon. Friend. The disposition of forces is, first, a matter for the security force commanders. In any case, it would not be appropriate to give details in the House.

Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State say whether it has been possible to identify the source of the explosives used in these indiscriminate attacks?

Mr. Atkins: Not always, although it is known that some of the explosive


definitely have been manufactured in the Republic.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State take it from me that all right-thinking people in Northern Ireland are with him when he praises the work of the bomb disposal squads? They are doing signal service in protecting lives in Northern Ireland. However, will he tell the House, in view of 19 bombs which have done serious damage, how many people have been arrested and charged with these crimes?

Mr. Atkins: I cannot link arrests for these crimes directly, although I have some figures to give the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in reply to his later question. I am grateful for his comments about the Army's bomb disposal squads. They deserve our utmost praise.

Housing Executive

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total sum owed in non-paid rents and rates to the Housing Executive.

Mr. Goodhart: At 30 June 1980 the amount due to the Housing Executive in respect of unpaid rent and rates was £10¼ million.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the highest figure of arrears in rents and rates ever stated by the Housing Executive in its short history? What steps are being taken by his Department to ensure that the 28,000-odd people who apparently are making no attempt voluntarily to pay their arrears are compelled to do just that?

Mr. Goodhart: Although I agree that the figure is far too large, it is also true that, as a proportion of the weekly collectable rents, the figure has fallen in the last two years. We have set up a central body to chase those who are in arrears, and there will be further administrative improvements in the debt-collection process by the end of the year.

Mr. Fitt: Has the hon. Gentleman read the recent report of the low pay unit about living standards in Northern Ireland, wherein it is stated clearly that in Northern Ireland, especially in certain

parts of Belfast where the majority of housing is under the control of the Housing Executive, it is because of high rents, high energy costs—including gas and electricity—and high levels of unemployment, that these people, not involved in any political protest, find themselves unable to pay the high rents demanded of them? That is why there is such a deficit.

Mr. Goodhart: Although power costs, including the cost of electricity, are high in Northern Ireland—and they are in the rest of the United Kingdom—rents are lower, and there is a very effective rent rebate system. It must be remembered that those who do not pay their rents increase the burden on the vast majority of tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who do.

Mr. Wm. Ross: Earlier the Minister referred to the house building programme in Londonderry. How many eviction orders have been sought in the courts by the Housing Executive for the non-payment of rent on the West Bank in Londonderry? Of those eviction orders granted, how many have been executed?

Mr. Goodhart: I cannot give that information without notice, but I shall give it in a letter to the hon. Member.

Mr. Kilfedder: Since average earnings in Northern Ireland are about £9 a week less than in the rest of the United Kingdom, will the Government, in view of their statement of cuts yesterday—assure the House that rents in public sector housing will not be increased, and abandon the policy of the previous Government of bringing rents in Northern Ireland into line with those in England and Scotland?

Mr. Goodhart: Yesterday the Government announced an increase in the amount of money available for public spending in Northern Ireland. But plainly, there has to be a relationship between rents in Great Britain and those in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Pendry: Is the hon. Gentleman really surprised at the level of rent and rate arrears that he has announced when last year there was a downward trend? Does he accept that the Government's policies and the cash squeeze imposed on the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will lead almost certainly to arrears


rising again? Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that every effort will be made to enable debtors to pay off their arrears without undue pressure or threats from the authorities concerned?

Mr. Goodhart: We shall seek to reach voluntary agreement with those who are in arrears. I am not surprised by the figures because in real terms they reflect the improvement that took place in the last month of the previous Administration.

Mr. Stephen Ross: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), the Liberal Party's Northern Ireland spokesman. However, I cannot do the round of all the parties on every question and I shall not try to do so.

Mr. Ross: Is the Minster able to give us the percentage of annual or weekly income that is expended on rates in Northern Ireland? The average for the rest of the United Kingdom is about 7½ per cent.

Mr. Goodhart: The Northern Ireland differential for rents is a slightly larger figure.

Ulster Countryside Committee

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the annual report of the Ulster Countryside Committee to 30 June 1978 was not signed until 20 November 1979 and not published until last month; what action he proposed to take on its principal recommendations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Goodhart: Staff changes in the secretariat, drafting consultations with the Countryside Committee and a printing dispute combined to produce a regrettable and unreasonable delay in publication. The Government have nevertheless made progress on a number of the recommendations such as the review of legislation. But we have not been able to meet the committee's request for a substantial increase in the number of staff engaged in countryside conservation.

Mr. Powell: While noting the Minister's very proper censures and trusting that arrangements will be made for this lapse

not to recur, will he ensure that special attention is paid to the recommendations of the outgoing committee of two years ago on areas of outstanding natural beauty and on consultation over planning decisions in rural areas?

Mr. Goodhart: Yes.

De Lorean Car 4

Mr. Cryer: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the application for financial assistance to the De Lorean Car Co. Ltd.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Yes, Sir. As I explained yesterday in my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), the extra funds available for industrial assistance and energy in 1980–81 will include up to £14 million by way of repayable loans towards the cost of bringing the De Lorean DMC 12 project to market launch. Detailed negotiations with De Lorean on this point are in progress.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the private enterprise contribution to this project a somewhat nebulous £13 million? Is not the taxpayer already contributing about £53 million? Does not an additional £14 million, allied to savage cutbacks in social services and education, suggest that the taxpayer is getting an extremely bad deal when he will not even own the car at the end of the day? The car will be owned by the De Lorean research partnership. Does not the right hon. Gentleman begin to believe that this looks like the biggest rip-off since the South Sea Bubble?

Mr. Atkins: We decided that we had to honour the commitment entered into by the previous Labour Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member—

Mr. Cryer: No. I had just left.

Mr. Atkins: No, the hon. Gentleman had not. I have checked that. I refer to the commitment to launch the DMC 12 car, which we must remember holds the prospect of 2,000 jobs in West Belfast

Mr. Alan Clark: Of course, my right hon. Friend is, to some extent, the prisoner of the small print of an agreement that was negotiated by the previous Labour Government. That we accept.


But does he realise that he is really the laughing stock, not only of the international motor industry but, for all I know, the criminal fraternity as well, on account of the scale of this rip-off? Would he like to confirm the rumour—I hope that he will be able to confirm the rumour—that this £14 million is, in fact, the very last tranche to be handed out, and that it is being done in consideration of an undertaking in writing from Mr. De Lorean not to ask for any more money, which will get him off the hook on which he was placed by the previous Government?

Mr. Atkins: The company has agreed in writing that the provision of extra funds removes the obligation contained in the original agreement to consider further applications.

Mr. Pendry: We accept that De Lorean needed financial assistance, but will the right hon. Genttleman accept that we totally oppose the method that has brought it about—namely, to fund De Lorean at the expense of education, which was cut by £10 million last year, and social services, where there is already too little provision? Will he accept that nothing short of massive Government assistance will rectify the serious economic imbalance in the Province? No rejigging of the existing Estimates will overcome these grave problems.

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman appears to have overlooked that part of my statement yesterday which indicated that the Government are providing an extra £48 million from the Contingency Reserve towards Northern Ireland.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the undertaking that he has now extracted from this American gentleman will not in any way be vitiated by the fact that we announced last year that we were not giving any more money to Harland and Wolff and we now are? Will he deal with the rather alarming proposition advanced yesterday that we had to put up £14 million for De Lorean because the company employs Catholics as we had given £42 million to Harland and Wolff because that company employs Protestants? Does he accept that that is not acceptable from the British taxpayer's point of view?

Mr. Atkins: There is no truth in the last part of my hon. Friend's question. We found that we had a commitment, which we have now discharged, to provide funds to bring the DMC 12 to market launch. An agreement has been signed, not by Mr. De Lorean but by the company, that releases the Government from the obligation contained in the original agreement.

Mr. Fitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that even those, such as myself, who were enthusiastic in their support for the undertaking at its beginning are now beginning to have deep reservations about the project especially as so much employment was promised that has not materialised? Yesterday the right hon. Gentleman linked a mini-Budget statement on cuts in education, health, social services and the environment and savage housing cutbacks with the De Lorean issue. Will he accept the opportunity given to him today to make a full statement on the savage cuts that he announced yesterday in Northern Ireland expenditure?

Mr. Atkins: I made a statement yesterday. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me questions about it, let him do so.

Sports Council

Mr. Stephen Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many representations have been made to him following the announcement of his intention to remove executive powers from the Northern Ireland Sports Council; and if he will now set up an independent inquiry before implementation.

Mr. Goodhart: Northern Ireland Ministers have received 109 letters about the Government's decision to remove executive functions from the Northern Ireland Sports Council. A further inquiry into this matter is not likely to add to the information available to the Government.

Mr. Ross: Will the Minister agree, having had all those representations, which have come from extremely able people in all walks of life, that it was a precipitate decision to wind up the executive powers of the Sports Council, a decision which does not relate to the rest of the United Kingdom? If there


is not to be an inquiry, will he at least reconsider that decision?

Mr. Goodhart: We shall have further discussions with the Sports Council. As the Liberal Party has encouraged successive Governments to cut bureaucratic costs and to preserve capital programmes, it is rather unfair of the Liberal Party's Northern Ireland spokesman to attack my noble Friend.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the majority of the representations that have been received are in support of the council retaining its executive powers?

Mr. Goodhart: The majority of the representations are in favour of the Sports Council retaining its present powers. However, the council's administrative costs are very high in relation to the costs of sports councils elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Pendry: Will the Minister go further and spell out those people who have made the representations? Is it not true that all the sporting bodies, almost all the district councils, including the Belfast city council, and all the political parties have opposed the Government? Why do the Government not take on board this strong representative body of opinion and agree to an independent inquiry? If it backs the Government, the problem, I am sure, will go away. If not, it will not go away.

Mr. Goodhart: All the information is available to the Government at this moment. All that is needed is further consultation on this point. There have been representations by many sporting bodies. These follow an energetic campaign on the part of the Sports Council to stimulate those complaints.

Building Regulations

Mr. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will introduce proposals to bring Northern Ireland building regulations in line with those in England and Wales—outside Inner London.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Hugh Rossi): Building regulations in Northern Ireland are kept very closely in line with those in England and Wales.

Mr. Chapman: Will my hon. Friend agree that the Northern Ireland building regulations could be considerably simplified without compromising safety, as could the other three sets relating to other parts of the United Kingdom? Is not the time now propitious to have consultations with the relevant Ministers in Wales, Scotland and England to try and unify and simplify the regulations so that one set is applicable throughout the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rossi: With regard to language, these are statutory instruments that have to be expressed in a certain way. We are constantly looking at ways to simplify and streamline the contents of the regulations. I am closely in touch with the review that is taking place in England and Wales. It is my intention that those in Northern Ireland should comply with the others, making due allowance for local differences.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: While welcoming the support of the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) for the contention of my hon. Friends and I that there should be common legislation for the United Kingdom, will the Minister ensure, in any case in future, that when there is amendment in any part of the Kingdom, there is not the previous time lag that has occurred of a year to 18 months in adjusting the regulations in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rossi: We are looking at this problem and trying to ensure that the time gap is reduced as much as possible.

Mr. Kilfedder: Is there any point in discussing building regulations when the Government, through their cuts announced yesterday, are to reduce the number of houses available in Northern Ireland for the homeless? Will the Minister apologise for his statement made to a news conference last night when he said that Northern Ireland's per capita figure for public expenditure is 35 per cent. higher than in Great Britain? This is a misleading statement—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This question is about building regulations.

Mr. Rossi: I am happy to reaffirm the statement I made last night to which the hon. Gentleman made reference. It is accurate. The current expenditure in


Northern Ireland on housing is one-and-a-half times more per capita than in Great Britain.

Sports Council

Mr. Straw: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many staff were in post in April in the Northern Ireland Sports Council; and how many will be in post in September.

Mr. Goodhart: On I April, the Sports Council for Northern Ireland employed 38 people full-time and six people part-time. I cannot say at this point how many staff will be in post in September.

Mr. Straw: In the light of the Minister's earlier statement that he will have further discussions on the matter, will he give an undertaking not to pre-empt the result of those discussions and ensure that the staff is not reduced until the discussions are completed?

Mr. Goodhart: There is clearly a need for economy in this sphere, as elsewhere, in Northern Ireland. It is the hope of the Government that the staff of the Sports Council will be at a lower figure in September than it is now.

Constitutional Reform

Mr. van Straubenzee: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made in his talks with the political parties in Northern Ireland on his latest constitutional proposals.

Mr. Marlow: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the proposals for constitutional reform.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since Parliament debated the Government's proposals I have met each of the four main parties at least once. Further meetings are planned during the summer. Concurrently, I am seeking the views of the smaller parties, and of business, trade union, Church and other community and interest groups in Northern Ireland. In this way, we hope to move towards our goal of finding an acceptable means of transferring responsibility to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland. In the light of my discussions, the Government will consider what recommendations should be put before Parliament.

Mr. van Straubenzee: Does not my right hon. Friend understand that he has the warm support of many people for the round of discussions that he has initiated? Have any representatives of political parties refused to take part in discussions with him? If the answer is negative, is not that in itself an encouraging start at least?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. No one has refused to come and speak to me. Everyone has accepted my invitation so to do. This is encouraging. It shows that political parties and others are anxious to make progress.

Mr. John Fraser: In view of the fact that even the majority in Northern Ireland have probably more in common with Southern Ireland than with mainland Britain—

Hon. Members: Rubbish.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Come and see us.

Mr. Fraser: I have been.

Mr. Powell: Come again, then.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman talk to all of us rather than to the right hon. Gentleman behind him?

Mr. Fraser: Will the Secretary of State consider, as an alternative strategy, the possible unification of the whole of Ireland? I know that it is difficult. Will he consider it?

Mr. Atkins: I think that the premise on which the hon. Gentleman's question was based was dealt with by the comments behind him.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: While wishing my right hon. Friend well in his discussions, will he bear in mind, in considering the constitutional future of the Province that, contrary to what has been suggested by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), opinion polls of repute show that about half the Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland support the union with Britain and are content for their laws to be made in the Parliament at Westminster?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. All the indications that we have show that the majority of people, whatever their religion, wish to remain part


of the United Kingdom. As I, and successive Government spokesmen, have frequently said, so long as that is the wish of the majority of people in Northern Ireland, so it will be.

Aid

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total amount of Government aid provided for Northern Ireland; and if he can give the comparable figures for Scotland, the Northern and the North-West regions of England.

Mr. Rossi: On a basis similar to that previously used for such calculations, the total subvention to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund in 1979–80 is estimated at £944 million. Comparable figures for other regions of the United Kingdom are a matter for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, as I mentioned earlier, public expenditure in Northern Ireland per capita is 35 per cent. higher than in the remainder of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Lewis: I do not think that the answer to the question gave me what I asked. I thought that my hon. Friend might have gone to the Chancellor and got the answer for me. Is my hon. Friend aware that I believe that it is a good thing to give responible Government aid to depressed areas? Would he care to ask the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) whether he would support the same amount of aid going to other areas of the United Kingdom as is given to Northern Ireland?

Mr. Rossi: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has no doubt heard the second part of my hon. Friend's question and can answer it himself. On the first part of the question, I have asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the comparable figures, but they are not readily available.

Mr. Molyneux: Following the review of expenditure in Northern Ireland, completed yesterday, will the Minister seek to allocate some of the available funds to the Belfast dock employers so that Belfast dockers can have the same degree of security of employment and be put on the same footing as their counterparts in Great Britain?

Mr. Rossi: I am afraid that I am not able to do so this year. I have had long discussions both with the employers and the dock workers. They are aware of the position. I hope to make some funds available to them next year.

Cross-border Security

Mr. Hal Miller: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvements have been made in the last two months to cross-border security, including action to block some roads.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: In the past two months eight more roads between County Fermanagh and County Monaghan have been closed. The security forces are continuing intensive efforts to prevent further terrorist attacks along the border and to apprehend those responsible for previous incidents. The extensive and increasing co-operation between the security forces on either side of the border is paying substantial dividends I shall consider additional closures or other measures if the Chief Constable advises me that they would be of real operational value and would not unduly interfere with legitimate traffic.

Mr. Miller: I thank my right hon. Friend for the action that he has taken since my last question on this subject. Is he aware of the growing concern about the numbers of assassinations of people on the so-called "hit list"—not all being prominent citizens, but many being supporters of law and order and of the union with this country—and the feeling that those assassinations are greatly facilitated by the open cross-border routes?

Mr. Atkins: Everyone in Northern Ireland is concerned at any assassination. There is considerable concern about the way in which terrorists can move to and fro across the border. Closing roads is one way of stopping them. I am sure that the increasing co-operation between the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic is the most effective way of putting an end to this traffic.

Gas Supplies (Cessation)

Mr. McQuade: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will now state the amount of compensation he is prepared to pay both in the public housing and private housing sectors for


the change over from gas when the gas undertakings in Northern Ireland cease their operations.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Giles Shaw): Grant-in-aid will be paid towards the reasonable cost of providing replacement appliances of an approved type. The rate of grant will be 100 per cent for households in receipt of supplementary benefit or family income supplement; 50 per cent. for private domestic consumers and 30 per cent. for industrial and commercial consumers.
Arrangements for Housing Executive tenants are still being worked out but will be no less favourable than for other domestic consumers. I shall, in due course, make a detailed announcement setting out the conditions of eligibility for grant and the manner in which payments will be made.

Mr. McQuade: In view of that statement, does the hon. Gentleman not think that it would be better to secure the natural gas pipeline for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Shaw: No. Following examination of the costs involved in the pipeline, together with the substantial amount of deficit financing involved in maintaining the system in Northern Ireland, the Government's conclusion was that the preferable option was to close the industry.

Mr. Fitt: Has the Minister taken into consideration that Northern Ireland is the lowest paid region in the United Kingdom, that many thousands of families are living just above the supplementary benefit and family income supplement levels and that they will be forced to pay a higher charge than the unemployed? Will he undertake to have another look at this matter to see whether something can be done to provide for such families?

Mr. Shaw: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's point. However, we must recognise that, with people living on supplementary benefit, there is a clear obligation for a definable group. It would not be easy to extend partial cover, in addition to the rates announced, to particular groups without affecting the whole.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Under-Secretary of State agree that his statement today is a statement of discrimina-

tion against those who are just above the poverty line? As many wage earners in Northern Ireland who are holding their jobs by accepting very low incomes will now be saddled with 50 per cent. replacements costs, will he reconsider this matter?

Mr. Shaw: I have already answered that question in reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The hon. Member for Antrim North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will recognise that that answer must stand. As regards reconsidering the matter, the proposals that I have announced today are the first of a series of proposals. There will be a fuller announcement in due course. I cannot promise a review of the grant payments offered.

Security

Rev. Ian Paisley: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Kilfedder: asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation.

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: During the month since I answered questions in the House on 10 July, the security forces have continued, often unobtrusively but with unrelenting determination and patience, to pre-empt terrorist attacks and to pursue and arrest those responsible for criminal acts. Progress continues to be made, gradually but inexorably.
In support of this, I remind the House that so far this year 309 people have been brought before the courts and charged with terrorist-type crimes, including 41 with murder and 30 with attempted murder. In addition, 125 weapons and more than 13,000 rounds of ammunition have been recovered. The past four weeks alone saw 29 people charged with terrorist crimes: four for murder and two for attempted murder. A number of important arrests have been made in the Republic of Ireland.
I regret, however, that since 10 July three people have been killed, two of them soldiers. One soldier was shot dead on 19 July in front of his wife and parents-in-law in a public house in Londonderry. He was on compassionate,


leave from the Army and had been visiting his wife who had given birth to a stillborn child. The second soldier was killed in an explosion at Aughnacloy on 27 July in which another soldier was seriously injured. The third person, a young civilian, was fatally wounded in South Belfast by a member of an RUC patrol. This case is under investigation and the RUC will be submitting a full report to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman make a statement about the killing on Sunday of Private William John Clarke of the UDR?

Mr. Atkins: This murder, if that is what it was—I assume that it was—took place in the Republic of Ireland. I am afraid that I cannot give the House any further information.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Although it is time for Prime Minister's questions, I shall call the other hon. Member whose question is being answered and allow extra time at the end of Prime Minister's questions.

Mr. Kilfedder: In view of the grave concern felt by Ulster people, will the Secretary of State agree to the request that I have made repeatedly in the past, to the effect that the Northern Ireland Committee should meet at Stormont to discuss these matters as well as the grave economic, industrial and social problems?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should address that request to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I understand that that cannot take place under our Standing Orders.

AREAS OF HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Ron Brown: asked the Prime Minister if she will visit the areas of high unemployment in order to explain her policies at a local level.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): I have visited many areas of high unemployment and my plans for the immediate future include other such visits.

Mr. Brown: I congratulate the Prime Minister on her smart outfit. Obviously I cannot say the same about her policies, which have created vast unemployment and inflation.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question.

Mr. Brown: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that she is creating disaster for this country, particularly for working people? Does she also appreciate that the day of reckoning must come? While she may win votes in the House, the real fight will take place elsewhere. Indeed, during the winter the Labour Party will be organising opposition to the very policies in which she believes. Is that not one of our democratic rights?

The Prime Minister: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman feels deeply about unemployment and the industrial recession. There is a world recession and unemployment is rising elsewhere. In fact, the recession has bitten more deeply in the United States. Industrial production there has gone down more rapidly and deeply than in this country. At this stage of the cycle, industrial production has not gone down by as much as it did at a similar stage under the previous Labour Government, in the six months to May 1975.

Mr. David Steel: In the course of visits to areas of high unemployment during the recess, will the Prime Minister confirm that the control of the money supply is the beginning, the middle and the end of the Government's economic policy? If so, and if the money supply is not under control, what is left of her policy?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have read the speech by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry entitled "Monetarism is not enough'.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Prime Minister will doubtless have seen the disturbingly self-confident assertion by the Japanese in The Times this morning to the effect that they intend to lead the West in the application of high technology by the end of the 1980s. Will she seize every opportunity to emphasise, not least where our unemployment is associated with a deliberate decision not to adapt to and adopt this technology, that this kind of


obstruction is self-defeating and that we must do everything in our power to follow the same course as the Japanese?

The Prime Minister: I accept that the Japanese are making immense strides, not only in research and development in technology, but in the speed with which they get it translated into industry and with which those working in industry accept the new equipment and operate it to the peak of efficiency. If we wish to compete, we must do the same.

Mr. Foot: As the steeply rising unemployment level is the worst problem facing the country and the Government, why has not the right hon. Lady and her Government brought before the House, before Parliament departs for the recess, fresh proposals to restore the £170 million cut that they made in the Manpower Services Commission budget? When will they carry out and bring before the House an expanded programme to deal with this problem?
Will the right hon. Lady now tell us, when the Government have failed to bring forward a programme before the departure of Parliament for the recess, how soon those proposals will be announced to the nation?

The Prime Minister: Already, about 324,000 people are affected by and benefit from special employment and training measures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has given an undertaking that if the youth opportunities programme is not sufficient it will be enlarged, so that every school leaver has the offer of a place by Easter 1981.

Mr. Foot: But what about the long-term unemployed? What about the cuts that the right hon. Lady's Government imposed on the programme of the Manpower Services Commission? What about the necessity of mounting a bigger programme to deal with the much heavier unemployment that we shall face? When will the Government bring forward those measures?

The Prime Minister: Dealing with long-term unemployment depends on getting British industry competitive. The right hon. Gentleman conspicuously failed to do that during his term of office in the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Myles: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to sweep away even more of those stupid rules and regulations that inhibit small firms, especially in rural areas, from taking on unemployed people?

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly do our best to sweep away many of the remaining regulations. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did a good deal for small businesses in the last Budget, and our policy on enterprise zones will be of particular advantage to small businesses starting up in them. However, I do accept that many of the other controls and regulations should go.

Mr. Dewar: Does not the right hon. Lady accept that the Government have a duty to create jobs in high unemployment areas such as Scotland, or does her devotion to the principle of mobility of labour lead her to join those who advise the unemployed of Scotland that their best chance of getting a job is to move to areas such as the prosperous South-East?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had either listened to my speech during the censure debate or if he had looked at the amount of regional assistance that has been given, he would know that the question is superfluous. During that debate I made an announcement about Inmos and other firms. We are trying to do two things. First, we are trying to move investment to areas where there is a reservoir of skilled labour. Secondly, we are continuing to operate the employment transfer scheme, which the hon. Gentleman's Government also operated.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 7 August.

The Prime Minister: This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. Later this afternoon I shall attend the memorial service for Sir Seretse Khama at Westminster Abbey.

Mr. Montgomery: Some time today, will my right hon. Friend urge her Ministers to take every possible opportunity to put across to the electorate the point that by its actions this week the Labour Party has shown that it is totally opposed to council house tenants being allowed to buy their own homes?

The Prime Minister: What my hon. Friend says is very true. Millions of people in this country will have the opportunity to buy their own council houses when the Housing Bill becomes law—a chance that they would never have had if the Labour Party had been in power.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the Prime Minister give thought to the fact that in Calderdale unemployment is rising more steeply than in the rest of Yorkshire and in the rest of the country? Will she assure my constituents that the textile, carpet, machine tool and confectionery industries will receive urgent help to stop them from further decline? Otherwise there will be litle manufacturing industry left in the area.

The Prime Minister: Textiles are already protected under the multi-fibre agreement, and we have about 400 quota agreements with several other countries under that agreement. There is a world recession, added to a number of other problems, and it is not possible for any Government to guarantee everyone a job. We shall have to work our way up steadily, and try to create new businesses and new industries using the latest technology, but no Government can do that alone.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: While I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her decision to abolish the Clegg Commission, will she give her whole attention in the coming year to the terrible problem of the unacceptably high levels of wage settlements in the public sector?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we certainly have to give our attention to that. It is obvious that comparability as a principle has not worked well. Obviously there are times when various comparability awards amount to more than is available from the taxpayer to pay them. Comparability is only one factor in determining public sector pay awards. The real determining factor is what the tax-

payer can afford to pay. We shall conduct matters in that way in the future.

Mr. Urwin: Looking beyond 7 August, to the time when the right hon. Lady takes her standing ovation at the Conservative Party conference, will she then pause to reflect on the sheer misery that she has created in thousands of homes throughout the United Kingdom as a result of the additional unemployment caused by her Government's policies? Will she then give further thought to the requirement upon her Government to halt the flow of fugitives from depression from develepment areas such as the Northern region? If she cannot do that, will she then tender her resignation?

The Prime Minister: If there were an answer to unemployment in a free society it would have been found long since, and the right hon. Gentleman would not have had to experience 1·6 million people unemployed under his Government. May I remind him that while his right hon. Friend the Shadow Leader of the House was Secretary of State for Employment, unemployment rose by 90 per cent. in Swansea, by 103 per cent. in Aberdare, by 128 per cent. in Neath, by 145 per cent. in Llanelli, by 98 per cent. in Cardiff, and so on.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in her busy schedule to consider the question of the computerisation of the Inland Revenue? Bearing in mind that this is an extremely complex matter, will she, nevertheless, consider the fact that no other country with a viable computer company capable of doing the job would dream of giving it to a foreign company?

The Prime Minister: I understand both the complexities of the matter and the sensitivities of the House. We are still considering it, and we shall make an announcement as soon as we have reached a decision.

BECKTON

Mr. Spearing: asked the Prime Minister if she will make an official visit to Beckton.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Spearing: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Beckton there are many families, with small children, living in tower blocks? Does she not agree that the sale of council houses by the GLC, or the forced sale of council houses by any borough council, must inevitably reduce the opportunity for such families to move out? Does the right hon. Lady think that this policy would have gained the approval of St. Francis of Assisi?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not accept the assumptions upon which the hon. Gentleman's question is built. To give people the opportunity to buy either the house in which they live or, if they have held the tenancy of a council house, another house, will bring joy to many, and it will introduce them to the ownership of property which Labour Members have experienced for many years. It will give them a chance to buy their own homes in small estates. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the many Labour Members who have large estates.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Mr. Heddle: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 7 August.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave earlier.

Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend consider extending the Government's practice of allowing private enterprise to compete for the provision of non-medical services in the National Health Service to local authorities? Does she agree that by so doing and by allowing local authorities to contract out such services as refuse disposal to private enterprise, she would be helping local authorities to reduce further the extravagance which still exists, particularly in Labour-controlled councils?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that a number of public authorities and local authorities will consider contracting out more services to the private sector. It gives them a much greater degree of flexibility than they would have if they did it all through the public sector, and it can often be done more economically in the private sector.

Mr. Foot: As the right hon. Lady's policies have been so disastrous in the fields of local government, employment, inflation and industrial policy, may we end on a happier note by congratulating the right hon. Lady on her Cabinet's decision about teachers' pay? Does she agree that it would have been extremely dishonourable if the Government had sought to abandon and breach an agreement that had been made and had repudiated an arbitration agreement? Will the right hon. Lady tell the House now what adjustment she will make in the rate support grant in order to enable the Cabinet decision to be properly carried into effect?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the last part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "None." All these claims have to be met within existing cash limits. If some people take out more for themselves, that will cause, as I have frequently warned, greater unemployment elsewhere.
With regard to that particular arbitration, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is about the only compulsory arbitration that there is in industrial relations. It can be set aside only—and the wording is very specific—if national economic circumstances "require" it—not "justify" it; not "advise" it; not "if there are clear and compelling reasons". It is only if national economic circumstances "require" it. We felt that national economic circumstances did not require it. Had we taken the view that they did, it would have meant setting aside quite a number of other claims which have already been settled.

Mr. Foot: Why does the right hon. Lady not accept my congratulations with a more pleasant spirit? I was congratulating her Government on not taking dishonourable action. Will she repudiate the scandalous stories in the press that she wanted to take that dishonourable action but was turned down by the so-called "wets" in the Cabinet? Can she say when the next revolt is likely to take place and what is likely to be the subject matter?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was wanting to congratulate me. When did he do such a quick U-turn? It was pretty nifty footwork.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about business?

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): The business for the first week after the Summer Adjournment will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 OCTOBER—Debate on the structure and management of the National Health Service in England.
TUESDAY 28 OCTOBER—Debate on procedure.
WEDNESDAY 29 OCTOBER—Debate on a motion for the Adjournment of the House on a subject of the Opposition's choice.
THURSDAY 30 OCTOBER—Motion on Education (Assisted Places) Regulations, and on other orders to be announced later.
FRIDAY 31 OCTOBER—Resumed debate on the motion on references in court to Official Report of Debates and reports of Committees.
Mr. Speaker, the House will wish to know that preparations are proceeding on the basis of the new Session being opened on Thursday 13 November.

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have announced a mild week for the House when we return. First, I take note that he has not proposed that we should have the amendment Bill that will be required to carry out the Scottish housing arrangements that we discussed this week. We should be quite happy if that amendment Bill were brought forward in the second week rather than in the first. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will include the announcement of that amendment Bill in his next Business Statement.
More important than that, we believe that it is highly probable that the House will have to be recalled long before that date in order to deal with the rising and dangerous unemployment situation in Britain—the most dangerous that we have had to face for 30 to 40 years.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly take into account the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion. Of course, it is always open for the Opposition—and indeed, for any hon. Member—to request the Government to recall the House of Commons, should national circumstances, in their opinion, require it.

Mr. Lawrence: We shall be getting a statement on civil defence before the House rises, shall we not?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We shall be getting it as soon as business questions are concluded. It will be sandwiched between business questions and a statement on Members' pay.

Mr. David Steel: Have I missed something, or will the Government be announcing the result of the inter-party talks on the future government of Scotland? If the announcement has not yet been made, as it is likely to be the non-event of the year will it be made in the middle of August?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It will not be the non-event of the year. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the Liberal Party conference."] It is very annoying to have one's better lines taken from one. It will not be the non-event of the year, but it will be made as soon as the necessary arrangements have been completed.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the Procedure Committee is set up it will not be entirely restricted to examining changes in the Supply procedure, since, while fundamental changes in procedure are not necessary at present, there are, none the less, many relatively minor matters that the House may want the Committee to examine? For example, those of us who sat up during last night may well feel that there is some merit in the argument that the debate on the Third Reading of Private Bills should be restricted to one hour rather than three hours.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The motion that the Government have tabled for consideration by the House would confine the Procedure Committee to the vital question of the consideration of Supply. I believe that that is the most urgent question facing us in the procedural field. I do not want to be delayed in any way. The motion will be before the House,


and my hon. Friend will no doubt be able to discuss it then.

Mr. Whitehead: I congratulate the Leader of the House on rescheduling the debate on procedure at an early date. Can he confirm that amendments to the motion that the Government have tabled—provided that they are in order—will be accepted on the Monday on which we return? It would be extremely unfortunate if we had to table such amendments today, more than two months before the debate.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The motions have been on the Order Paper for several weeks, but the question whether amendments are accepted is a matter for the Chair; it is not a matter for me.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may give a little guidance. The House knows that I frown on starred amendments where-ever possible, as has every Speaker, except when they are Government starred amendments.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I recognise that, owing to the zoological antics of the Labour Party, my right hon. Friend is left with no choice other than to postpone the debate on procedure, which was arranged for today. Will he nevertheless use his best offices to ensure that the Procedure Committee will be able to report in sufficient time to make sure that the House is not required again to pass on the nod the Spring Supplementary Estimates—including Estimates to reimburse for failure to observe cash limits?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It was a personal disappointment to me that the procedure debate had to be postponed. However, I accept it in the interests of the House of Commons as a whole. It is only postponed. The House will have the opportunity to take decisions when the matter has been debated. I hope that the Procedure Committee will tackle this problem urgently, so that the propositions will be published and the House will have an opportunity to decide on them at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Pavitt: Is the Leader of the House aware that the debate on the National Health Service on the first day of our return creates difficulties for hon. Members in all parts of the House, as we shall be discussing the structure of the NHS

when 19 area health authorities will be disappearing and when between 160 and 180 districts will be created? In September the regional health authorities will be putting in proposals for the boundaries of these areas, which affect every constituency. The Secretary of State will have no opportunity to make an announcement in the House about such procedures. Will he discuss this issue with the Secretary of State for Social Services, so that before that day hon. Members may be given some information about their constituencies, and about the boundaries that are likely to be drawn?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly do that. I add the footnote that this is a prognostication about business that is to take place in three months' time. Many things may happen, some beneficial and some less so, during the interval. There is an element of provisionality in the issue.

Mr. Adley: I should like to reciprocate the spirit expressed by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who sought to end Prime Minister's Question Time with a congratulation. Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations from, I believe, all hon. Members on the easy week that will face us on our return? The burden of being in this place is obviously too much both for the Leader of the Opposition and for the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who have presumably retired to their estates. Is my right hon. Friend aware that we thank him on their behalf for an easy week on our return, in the knowledge that those right hon. Members will not be here when we return, just as they have not been here at the end?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for those compliments. Such compliments are something of a rarity this week. I shall reflect on them when I retire to my semidetached.

Mr. Spriggs: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of early-day motion 748, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues?
[That this House is deeply shocked at the reported increased number of unemployed men and women in the United Kingdom, which, with the decision of a major furniture and upholstery firm to


lay off workers and to close a factory in the Manchester area, has reached the proportions of a major economic disaster in the North West Region; and calls upon the Government to take special measures to reduce the hardship caused by Conservative Government economic policy.]
Will the right hon. Gentleman invite the Prime Minister to undertake a special investigation into plans to use local initiative to take school leavers straight into training, under the indexed training programme? If the Prime Minister takes that initiative on behalf of the Government, will she also do something about bringing together those authorities that are prepared to do all in their power to absorb school leavers into permanent employment?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Youth unemployment is the most severe problem facing us. I shall pass on that constructive suggestion to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope to call those hon. Members who have been rising in their places, as long as they ask brief questions.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. Friend undertake, as soon as possible in the autumn, to lay a long-awaited order that refers to the overwhelmingly popular and pressing demand to give our constitutional comrades from the European Parliament proper access to the House of Commons?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: A report of the House of Commons (Services) Committee recommends that members of the European Parliament should have limited access to facilities in the House. I have not rushed the report forward, in the interests of peace and good will. However, the House must have an opportunity to come to a decision on the report, and I hope that that will be possible later in the year.

Mr. Heffer: Given that I have often asked the Leader of the House for a full-scale debate on the high levels of unemployment on Merseyside and on its problems, and as the first week back is to be an easy week, may we have a debate on that subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman

aware that the Prime Minister said that a free society could not solve the problem of unemployment. She did not make that point during the pre-election or election campaigns. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that we shall have an early debate on those problems?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: During the first week after the recess there will be a Supply day. This subject might be relevant to that. The Government are deeply concerned about the situation on Merseyside, and it will retain its special development area status. We are making particular efforts to aid the young unemployed on Merseyside.

Mr. Alan Clark: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the House divided 23 times last night, and that 20 of those Divisions occurred without any intervening debate? Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members were shuffling through the Lobbies without any result? Although we all know that Opposition Members are scared stiff of their general management committees and have to demonstrate a little machismo at the end of the Session, would it not be appropriate to devote some of the recess to concentrating on how to avoid such practices?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have sympathy with the point raised by my hon. Friend. As I shuffled through all those Divisions, it occurred to me that there might be some means of avoiding such procedures. I shall certainly devote some of my time in my bungalow to considering that.

Mr. Fitt: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not usually intervene, but the Leader of the House has got mixed up. It is my bungalow.

Mr. Fitt: As the Leader of the House refused to find time for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the cuts that were announced yesterday by the devious means of a written answer, will he provide time for it in the first week of our return? Some of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are not concerned about easy weeks. We want the House to discuss the cuts that have been announced. Will the Leader of the House find time for the Secretary of State to make a statement


during the first week of our return, and within this Session?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I cannot give the specific assurance that the hon. Gentleman requested. We should have debates on the situation in Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Kilfedder: Irrespective of the Secretary of State's failure to make a statement directly to the House on public expenditure cuts, one of his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office made an unfair and misleading comparison, which was insulting to the people of Ulster. He compared public expenditure in the different regions of the United Kingdom without stating the special factors that apply to the Province.
May we have a debate in the Northern Ireland Committee, or, better still, in Northern Ireland, during the recess? We should then be able to debate those special features, namely, an unemployment rate that is twice the national average and the fact that, proportionately, there are 50 per cent. more supplementary benefit claimants and 500 per cent. more family income supplement claimants than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass on those remarks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He is doing an excellent job, in extremely difficult circumstances.

Mr. Edward Lyons: In view of the desperate state of the British carpet industry, which has been battered by American imports of cheap carpets as a result of America's cheap fuel policy, will the Leader of the House consider arranging for a debate to deal with the state of the British carpet industry?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: If there is an opportunity, I shall consider that. However, the first week clearly will not be an easy week.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will my right hon. Friend make arrangements to enable the Northern Ireland Committee to meet in Northern Ireland whenever that is appropriate?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall certainly consider that matter.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Leader of the House aware that between now and when the House reconvenes there will be no fewer than eight meetings of the EEC Council of Ministers, about which we have had no oral statement of business? In view of the fact that there can be no oral statement or written answer about the outcome of those meetings will the Leader of the House undertake that there will be official statements on all those meetings, particularly those relating to fisheries and the budgetary contribution?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We shall have a debate on the EEC documents concerned with fisheries later today. That, in part, will meet the hon. Member's point. I shall certainly draw the hon. Member's comments about the other matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal.

Mr. Christopher Price: On the business for Friday 31 October—the conclusion of the debate on references in court to proceeding in this House—is the Leader of the House aware that he would have a much better chance of getting that debate concluded if he were willing to table both of last year's recommendations of the Select Committee on Privileges, including the recommendation that came out of the Colonel B affair that fair reports of proceedings in this House should have absolute privilege, just as Hansard does? May I see the Leader of the House in his bungalow and discuss this matter?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Certainly, I shall be delighted to discuss that matter with the hon. Member. I am prepared to meet him anywhere, even in Bolsover Castle.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Leader of the House aware that Bolsover Casle is falling down as a result of cuts in public expenditure by the Tory Government? The local press reported two or three weeks ago "Castle's cash aid runs out."
Will the Leader of the House tell us when the Government intend to raise the question of the reception for the British athletes who did so well in Moscow? How many representations has he received from those Conservative Members who spent nearly the whole fortnight rushing up to the Television Room in the House


to watch British athletes performing so well?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall pass the hon. Member's comments to my right hon. Friends who are responsible for those matters. I am sorry to hear that Bolsover Castle is falling down; perhaps we could meet on Creswell Crags.

Mr. Winnick: Have the Leader of the House and his colleagues, including the Chief Whip, learnt the most elementary lesson for all Governments—that this House cannot be treated with contempt? The events of the last few days were undoubtedly a victory not just for the Opposition but for the House of Commons itself. Does the Leader of the House agree that many people will find it strange that with a deepening economic crisis, and unemployment rising, the Government are closing down Parliament until the end of October?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We can all draw our own lessons from the events of this week, and one lesson that I draw is that the Housing Bill will reach the statute book on time. That will be remembered long after the shenanigans of last night are forgotten. I have never made any complaints about the Opposition exercising their legitimate rights in this House. As Leader of the House, I recognise my duty to the Opposition as well as to the Government. If I had ever shown any contempt for this House I would not occupy the position that I hold today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson), the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. Pawsey), and the Opposition Front Bench to finish.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Is the Leader of the House aware that since he began his Business Statement the report of the all-party talks on the government of Scotland has been made available in the Library? It is, in fact, the non-event of the year, as was suggested by the Leader of the Liberal Party. Will the right hon. Gentleman now take notice that there will be a major campaign in Scotland and in this House, throughout the summer and when Parliament resumes,

to press the Government to produce a genuine initiative for devolution in Scotland?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I shall take that matter on board. I know of the hon. Member's interest in these matters and I know that he has extensive properties in Scotland. I shall be happy to meet him there if necessary.

Mr. Pawsey: When will the House have an opportunity to discuss and perhaps finalise the outstanding matters in the Finniston report? This has been before the House previously. It is an important matter to the engineering industry, and the House should have an opportunity to discuss it as soon as possible.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: We have had a discussion on this report, but I shall draw my hone Friend's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. I agree that the Finniston report is most important for the future of the country.

Mr. Wrigglesworth: In view of the deep anxiety that has been expressed on both sides of the House about the Government's intended procurement of computers for the Inland Revenue pay-as-you-earn system, will the Leader of the House have urgent consultations with his colleagues to see whether a statement can be made tomorrow about the Government's intentions? Is he aware that if no statement is made and the matter is allowed to drag on into the recess it will heighten the suspicion of both sides of the House that it is not the Government's intention to give the order to a British firm and follow their own policies of buying British?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: As the Prime Minister said, this is a complex and difficult question. It is most important to reach the right decision, rather than an immediate decision. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter is being considered carefully by the Government.

Mr. Urwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was hoping to catch your eye in order to put a supplementary question to the Leader of the House, but largely because of the minor disturbance that took place in the Public Gallery—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman can address a point of order


only to me, and it must be a matter on which I can rule.

Mr. Urwin: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. While the exchanges were taking place across the Floor of the House about discussions in bungalows and semi-detached houses, people who live in semi-detached houses were busy making their representations. There are 3,500 people who will lose their jobs before Parliament resumes in October because of the closure of the Consett steelworks, and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman knows that he is going beyond the scope of order.

CIVIL DEFENCE

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on civil defence.
On taking office last year, the Government decided to accord high priority to the defence of the nation; and a review of civil preparedness for home defence was set in train so that this important element of our defence strategy could be considered as part of the improvement of our general defence effort. The review has been wide-ranging, embracing the responsibilities of many of my right hon. Friends as well as my own. As a result, I am now able to announce certain immediate steps which the Government judge to be necessary. These will extend as appropriate to Scotland, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be responsible for them there. I will also refer to parts of the review which are still continuing.
I begin by emphasising that, despite the difficulties of the present international situation, the Government do not regard armed conflict with the Warsaw Pact countries as probable, let alone inevitable or imminent, provided that we maintain, as we intend, a firm commitment to peace, while ensuring that our defence forces remain balanced and effective. We believe that to be seen to be prepared at home, as well as capable of military deterrence and defence, will make war less likely. Nevertheless, I remind the House of what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence said in paragraph 110 of his statement on the defence Estimates 1980. He said that Soviet strategists hold that any war in Europe is likely to escalate into a nuclear exchange, though it might start with conventional warfare, and that the warning time we might receive could be very little. This period of warning might, we believe, be measured in days rather than weeks.
Against this background, the Government consider that an expanded civil defence programme is both prudent and necessary to achieve an appropriate balance in our defence capability. To this end, we propose to take the following immediate steps.
First, the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, which exists to


give the public warning of air attack and, in the event of a nuclear attack, to give warning of the approach of radioactive fallout and subsequently to monitor the intensity of fallout radiation, will now modernise its communications, replace certain obsolete equipment and improve the allowances paid to the volunteers of the Royal Observer Corps, who play a vital part in maintaining the warning and monitoring systems. There will also be additional expenditure on the completion of the organisation's administrative headquarters and the sub-regional headquarters for decentralised government. Extra expenditure will be incurred on the associated communications network and on improvements to the arrangements for the wartime broadcasting service, which, if the need ever arose, would be established to ensure the continuation of public broadcasting facilities even after large-scale attack.
A great deal of civil defence work must be done at local level, and the Government propose to double the money available for this purpose. We shall consult the local authority associations about the allocation of additional resources for local planning and training, and the adaptation of premises by district councils to complete the pattern of local authority war time administrative headquarters and communications. Effective civil defence arrangements depend upon co-operation between central Government and local government. I know that concern has been expressed about variations in civil defence arrangements in different parts of the country. I am satisfied that the Government have adequate powers to ensure that proper standards of protection are provided throughout the country, and it will naturally be our aim, with the local authorities, to see that that is done.
We recognise that many county and regional councils at present lack the resources to plan for community involvement in civil defence below district level. The Government are ready to make more money available to meet this need and will discuss with the associations the most effective ways of doing so. We are anxious in particular to enable local emergency planners to maximise the contribution

made by the large number of citizens both individuals and members of organisations, who wish to add their efforts to civil defence planning on a voluntary basis. Many individual volunteers are already active in the civil defence field, and certain voluntary organisations are keen to play a fuller aprt. The harnessing of volunteer effort will be an important feature of our plans, and I intend to make a special appointment of a person of high standing for this purpose. There will be a separate appointment in Scotland.
At the same time, there will be greater involvement in civil defence planning and training on the part of central Government Departments, the emergency services, the Post Office and the National Health Service. There will be an increase in central training facilities for the senior staff at local and other authorities, including an expansion of the Home Defence college at Easingwold. There will also be improvements in the arrangements for the operation of emergency port facilities. The stock of emergency fire appliances is being refurbished this year.

Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman must be joking.

Mr. Whitelaw: The total additional cost of these immediate measures over the next three years will be about £45 million, and by 1983–84 expenditure on civil defence will have risen from £27 million a year before the review to £45 million a year, an increase of over 60 per cent. The additional costs will be covered by a reallocation of resources within existing programmes and without adding to the total of public expenditure.
I turn now to certain general policy matters and further studies that are still in progress.
In the face of an attack, dispersal is not a practicable policy, and in any event no part of the country could be regarded as safe from direct and indirect effects of nuclear weapons. A study is being made of domestic or family shelters, and advice will be available to the public later this year on a range of structures that would provide improved protection at relatively low cost. This guidance will


consist of design outlines for five different types of shelter and the degree of protection provided by each. We propose that, additionally, a survey of existing structures suitable for communal shelter purposes should be conducted, and we shall discuss with the local authority associations how best to do this.
We have also decided that it is right for information about civil defence and the likely effects of a future war involving the United Kingdom to be made generally available in peace time. The public has a right to knowledge of these matters. We have already published "Protect and Survive", and we shall be examining ways of making more information available.
The Government will also be studying the role and closer involvement of industry in defence planning.
Finally, the review has emphasised the need to promote effective co-ordination at all levels and between all those with responsibility for civil defence. Ministers will be attending some of the conferences already planned in various parts of the country for this purpose.
The measures that I have announced today are an important contribution to improving our civil preparedness. They are positive and cost-effective. The Government are confident that they will be widely supported in this House and in the country.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the Home Secretary aware that the general proposition at the beginning of the statement, that the Government do not regard armed conflict with the Warsaw Pact countries as probable, let alone inevitable or imminent, is important and puts the proposals in perspective? Does he recall the words of Lord Carver, in another place recently, when he said that:
in the event of a thermo-nuclear attack … designed to knock this country out, no civil defence organisation … could really achieve much, if anything, worthwhile"?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 March 1980; Vol. 406, c. 308.]
We are concerned today with damage arising from a smaller nuclear or conventional attack, if that is possible, given the chain effect that would follow. It is only in that context that it is sensible to talk about civil defence.
How are the public expenditure figures broken down? The right hon. Gentleman talks about the modernisation of the United Kingdom monitoring and warning organisation, and doubling money at local level. Doubling from what? He talks about refurbishing the "green goddesses", which is a procedure that goes on anyway. What part of the Government budget is losing expenditure if there is to be no overall increase in public expenditure? How does the new expenditure compare in real terms with that in 1968, when civil defence was essentially put on a care-and-maintenance basis? The expenditure then was three times more than it is now. It is all very well to talk of increases, but what do they add up to at the end of the day?
The right hon. Gentleman talks of voluntary effort, but is he not aware that the keys to voluntary effort are the police, the fire service and the home-based Army? What are the certain voluntary organisations to which the Home Secretary referred and what type of person is to be approached to co-ordinate voluntary activities?
We note that there is to be no policy of dispersal, because no part of the country is safe. It is my view that that would be true, whatever our defence role. Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that when he talks of various types of shelter—to use the words of the past, the Morrison type, the Anderson type, and so on—there is a danger that he could mislead people about their efficiency? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is impossible to provide nuclear shelters for the entire population? To say that those who can afford small shelters can have them and that the rest will have no shelters is the wrong approach.
Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the only way through the frightful problem of nuclear war or updated conventional war, which would be far worse than the horrors that parts of Europe underwent in the last war, is for us to work for the disarmament of the great Powers? We have to convince the Russians, the Chinese and the Americans. To convince ourselves is not enough.

Mr. Whitelaw: I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that if we are to make war less likely it must be sensible to have military deterrents and to make


preparations at home. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should suggest otherwise. I believe that it is an essential feature of making war less likely.
The right hon. Gentleman said that all voluntary effort should be done through the police and the fire service. I cannot accept that. The following organisations have indicated that they are extremely anxious to take part in the voluntary effort: the WRVS, the Red Cross, the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Royal Observer Corps and, in various parts of the country, including Devon and Wiltshire, voluntary organisations. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, should decry voluntary effort in this country. That is exactly what he did. A great many people want to take part voluntarily, and it is a pity to decry their efforts.
Many people are asking what sort of nuclear shelters they should have. There are many shelters on the market. Some are undoubtedly good, but some are not. It is important that proper instruction should be given to those who wish to have shelters, as many do.
It is clear from what I have said that the Government, having taken over civil defence on a care-and-maintenance basis, are providing for a substantial increase in expenditure to improve our preparedness.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to allow 20 minutes on questions on the Home Secretary's statement. The length of questions will decide the number of hon. Members called.

Mr. Buck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that responsible citizens throughout the land will welcome what he has had to say, because it enhances the credibility of our defence posture? Does he agree that it will bring our policies more in line with those of other "warlike" countries, such as Switzerland, Sweden and even Finland? It is wholly defensible and wholly responsible that my right hon. Friend should have made the statement that he has made.

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. We are seeking

sensible precautions which will make war less likely in the long run but which will prepare our people at home for the dangers that could ensue.

Mr. Dobson: Does the Home Secretary agree that the best deterrent against nuclear war would be for the Government's contingency plans to allow for them and the joint chiefs of staff to walk out into Parliament Square after they have taken the decision to use our independent deterrent and to stand above ground? Will the Government try to arrange in any multinational talks that take place that the power elites in the rest of the world come to the surface in the event of nuclear war rather than hiding under it while letting the populations be destroyed?

Mr. Whitelaw: Snide and sarcastic comments are totally out of place on an important matter for the people of our country.

Mr. Banks: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement today has moved a mountain of neglect and indifference which has existed for more than 15 years on the subject of civil defence, and that he deserves to be warmly congratulated for the excellence of his statement?
Will my right hon. Friend say whether he will consider appointing a commissioner for civil defence whose task would be to co-ordinate the work of the various Departments and to administer an inspectorate to ensure that local authorities meet the standards that are asked of them? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend give advice in the booklet that he will offer for sale to the public to show that lives can be saved if the correct measures are taken?

Mr. Whitlaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been foremost in advocating preparedness in civil defence and who introduced an important document on the subject, which I believe made many people think very carefully.
As to the question of how we should organise at the centre, I believe that it is right that the co-ordination should be done inside the Home Office. My Minister of State will be specifically responsible to me in that area. I have announced the appointment of a person of high standing for England and Wales and a separate appointment for Scotland for


the harnessing of voluntary effort. The administrative work must be my responsibility.

Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Home Secretary aware that we welcome his decision to improve monitoring, co-ordination and training in civil defence matters? Does he agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) that in the event of a direct nuclear attack there is no protection that can be afforded? No shelter can give adequate protection. Will the person of high standing have funds directly available to him from the Home Secretary in order to deal with voluntary bodies, or will he have to work through the local authorities?

Mr. Whitelaw: The person of high standing will work directly through me. Therefore, I shall have to find the funds for his co-ordination work from the budget of the Home Office. I cannot believe that when other countries think it right to take measures to prepare their people and to ensure that as much life as possible should continue we should not do the same. That is what we are doing, and I should have thought that it would be regarded as sensible.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be welcomed by the people of this country, who have been concerned for some time about the dilapidated state of our home defence? As a first step, this is extremely progressive, particularly bearing in mind that we have certain constraints on public expenditure at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend also accept that in countries such as Switzerland and Sweden great advances have been made through planning regulations to equip many of the population with shelters? Has he given consideration to that?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have to accept that comparisons with other countries are difficult because conditions are different in various countries. If we can learn from what others have done through planning procedures, we shall certainly do so.

Mr. Frank Allaun: Quite apart from the transparent futility or civil defence against nuclear weapons and nuclear fallout, is there not a more questionable and dangerous aspect? Are not the Govern-

ment extending civil defence deliberately to condition people mentally to accept a war as unavoidable and to involve them in preparing for it?

Mr. Whitelaw: I know the hon. Gentleman's view and I totally disagree with it. He is entitled to it, but I do not happen to agree with it. I made clear in my statement that the Government do not regard war as inevitable or imminent. We believe that by arranging more preparedness we are making it more likely that we shall preserve peace. The hon. Gentleman knows that I feel that his belief in just giving up makes war far more likely than anything else.

Mr. Neil Thorne: In view of the large number of reservists who are obliged to retire as early as 45, and since they have skills that would be useful in civil defence, does my right hon. Friend have any plans to make use of their abilities?

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that for the time being home defence planning must continue on the basis that in a period of tension and of conventional war the Services, including the Territorial Army, will be fully engaged in the performance of purely military tasks. That is the basis on which I have had to plan.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Can the Home Secretary say what consideration he has given to the question of people who live in high-rise accommodation in many of our large cities? What protection will be offered to them in the event of an attack?

Mr. Whitelaw: I have announced that a survey is to take place, particularly in our big cities, of premises which could be used for communal shelters. We shall see what can be provided in that way.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I think that he is right to emphasise that nowhere in the United Kingdom will be safe in the event of a nuclear exchange, but does he agree that certain prime targets are readily identifiable? Would it not be prudent to initiate a programme of public shelter construction at least in such vicinities?

Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot go that far. The provision of public shelters through the Government would be enormously


costly and something which we could not contemplate.

Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his friendly, bland, shaggy-dog manner will not convince anyone who really knows about these matters? Is it not clear that, because there is a genuine concern amongst our people about the possibility of nuclear war, he is trying to pretend that the Government really are doing something when they are not doing anything? Does he agree that there is nothing that one can do in relation to nuclear weapons except to do something about nuclear disarmament? May I advise the Government that it would be far better if they concentrated on working for a nuclear-free zone throughout Europe than on the nonsense that we have heard this afternoon?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman's personal remarks about me do not add up to much in relation to the importance of seeking to prepare our people sensibly for civil defence. The hon. Gentleman says that we are not doing anything. An increase of over 60 per cent. in expenditure in the period that I have mentioned is something. What we are planning is a considerable change in the idea of a care-and-maintenance policy only. It is important that it should be so.
As I said to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), I do not accept the view that we should make no preparations for the dangers of nuclear war, either in defence generally or in home defence. Such a view is surprising because it does not seem to be that of many other countries.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I support his statement? In his review and renewal of civil defence services, will he give thought to creating a national disaster service, which has long been needed in Britain, to meet local disaster problems? My right hon. Friend referred to approved designs of nuclear fallout shelters. He seemed to suggest that some on the market were not able to do the job for which they are intended. Does he intend to designate one of the five designs the "Whitelaw" shelter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would not propose that. If I gave a misleading impression about the shelters I should like to correct it by saying that there is a wide variety of proposals. It is right that people with particular knowledge should study the different proposals, decide which are likely to be the most effective and tell our people accordingly. The question of a disaster corps is a different matter.

Mr. William Hamilton: As the right hon. Gentleman says that dispersal is not a practical policy, will the Government encourage the individual householder to buy his own shelter, class 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5? If so, what guidance will the Government give to the would-be purchaser as to the relative safety of the shelters? If people prefer not to buy a shelter but to stay indoors, will the Government give advice about the quality of whitewash put on windows to prevent radiation flash, which I understand to be one of the guidelines in the Government's White Paper?

Mr. Whitelaw: A scientific assessment of the various shelters will be made and people will have to make up their own minds about what they wish to do. That is the sensible way to proceed. Although the hon. Gentleman enjoys being somewhat cynical, many people want such guidance, ask for it and expect it. I think that they should have it.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations? Does he accept that the broard measures that he is taking, including the development of voluntary services, will benefit the country not only in the event of a nuclear attack, which the Opposition dispute, but in the event of a conventional attack or of other mishaps or acts of God? Does he accept that an important fabric of society is being revived? Do the present plants take an adequate view of the provision of food and water, particularly in view of the acceptance of non-dispersal? Does my right hon. Friend believe that more should be done in that respect?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank my hon. Friend. Of course there is always the possibility of a conventional war. That must be guarded against and it is one of the purposes of the proposals. Many of the voluntary organisations to which I have referred have a role in relation to other


disasters and acts of God. Today I am referring specifically to civil defence. We shall examine further the plans for the provision of food and water to ensure that they are adequate.

Mr. Faulds: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider taking back the document, because it really is ludicrously inadequate? Does he not realise that full civil defence can be provided on the range and scale that it is provided in Sweden and Switzerland, but only at that cost, if citizens' lives are to be saved across the country? Will he and his colleagues understand that the only real civil defence is to work towards nuclear disarmament—which his Government are not doing?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not accept that the Government's defence policies are doing anything other than working with our allies towards preserving the peace. I have made it clear, and I may as well say it again, that the people who advocate unilateral disarmament are the people who are most likely to provoke the war which they desperately and genuinely believe they seek to avoid. I just do not accept their view. Some preparedness is important. I do not believe that in our position we can contemplate preparations of the kind operating in Sweden and Switzerland. What I have proposed is a sensible basis on which to make some reasonable preparation for our people.

Mr. Jessel: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the need for fallout shelters is as great on the outskirts of London as anywhere because of the particular risk which could arise from a nuclear explosition 10 or 15 miles away? Will he say when, during the next few months, he expects to be able to give further information about the different types of fallout shelter?

Mr. Whitelaw: I hope to be able to give that information by the end of the year.

Mr. Soley: How long does the Home Secretary think that radioactive fallout will remain at danger levels in the event, first, of an air-burst nuclear strike on an area of mass population, and, secondly, a ground-burst nuclear strike on a military target? Does he agree that the food

and water supplies will be contaminated for a longer period? Is not that information essential if the public are not to be lulled into a false sense of security?

Mr. Whitelaw: I do not believe that anyone could answer those questions. So much depends on many variables and many different problems, such as the size of the explosion, the weather, and other matters that no one can foretell. It would be misleading to try to answer.

Mr. Pollock: I thank the Government for their commitment to improve civil defence preparations. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that special attention will be paid to sensitive areas—such as my constituency of Moray and Nairn—which have major RAF bases? Will he say a little more about the nature of the Scottish overlord? Will he be charged with the key job of liaison between central Government, local authorities and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force?

Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend's questions fall within the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. Discussions with local authorities must take account of local matters. My hon. Friend mentioned the co-ordinator for the voluntary effort in Scotland. He will work with the Secretary of State, who will be responsible in Scotland, as I will be in England, for liaison with local authorities.

Mr. Cryer: Does not the reopening of the regional seats of government mean that the Government are providing bolt-holes for a few appointed bureaucrats in the event of a nuclear war so that they can administer the radioactive cinder heat during the last dying days of civilisation? Is it not true that the only defence is to get rid of nuclear weapons? Is not the right hon. Gentleman ashamed to announce an increase of many millions of pounds expenditure on a cosmetic indoctrination of the population when people have demonstrated in the House today about the loss of jobs created by the Government through lack of proper expenditure?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Gentleman should realise that the previous Labour Government sought to establish regional centres. We are seeking to make them


effective and to improve their communications. That is a thoroughly sensible objective. The previous Labour Government thought that right, and we now need to ensure that they are effective and that their communications are improved. It appears to be a sensible idea.
The hon. Gentleman knows that I do not agree with him on his other point. He does not agree with me. I am never likely to agree with him, and I do not want to.

Mr. Lawrence: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reassuring initiative. Is he aware that many people in Britain want him to go further with civil defence as soon as the economic circumstances allow? Will he consider the possibility of giving tax concessions to those who build shelters in their homes? Will he reassure everybody that in the event of a nuclear attack the organisation of defence in the regions will not be in the hands of local government officers?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the question of extra expenditure, I have announced a sensible start, and a reasonable preparation, at this time. It would be wrong for me to give any projections. My hon. Friend will be the first to realise that matters concerning tax are predominantly not for me in any circumstances. However, I shall ensure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer appreciates what my hon. Friend said. I hope that what we have sought to do will provide some reassurance, and that is its purpose.

Dr. Summerskill: The Home Secretary stated that the measures would cost an additional £45 million over the next three years. He then said that that would be covered by a reallocation of resources within existing programmes without adding to the total of public expenditure. Will he say which programmes will have money taken away in order to make the necessary provision? Is it not a cosmetic additional cost if he subtracts from one to add to another?

Mr. Heffer: There will be cuts in law and order.

Mr. Whitelaw: Naturally I am responsible for the allocation of expenditure in the Home Office. I believe that it is vitally important to make this preparedness. I have undertaken to ensure that I provide the money from my budget. I am working out exactly how I shall do that. Because I shall find it from the Home Office budget, other matters on which I am spending money will have to bear some part of the cost. I am entitled to work out exactly which provisions will be affected. That is sensible.

Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The statement made by the Home Secretary covered civil defence measures in Scotland as well as in England and Wales—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is developing the habit, when he is not called, of raising a point of order that is not a point of order. I consider that to be an abuse of the rules of the House.

MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (PAY, PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES)

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about parliamentary pay, pensions and allowances.
On 21 July the Government proposed to the House a motion on these matters which would have reduced the cost of implementing the recommendations of the fifteenth report of the Top Salaries Review Body by about £1 million in the coming year. The House accepted the Government's recommendation about the pay of Members of Parliament but rejected that on the allowances to be paid for secretarial and other assistance to hon. Members. In addition, the House expressed the opinion that the notional rate of pay used for calculating the pension entitlements of hon. Members in the coming 12 months should be set at £13,750 a year rather than the £13,150 proposed by the Government; that the pay of hon. Members should correspond to the salary paid to a specific grade in the public service; and that the rate of accrual of hon. Members' entitlement to pension should be raised from one-sixtieth to one-fortieth of final salary for each year's service.
On allowances for secretarial assistance, the Government accept the resolution of the House and we are asking the Fees Office to give effect to it forthwith, backdated to 13 June. The maximum secretarial allowance will be at the rate of £8,000 a year and the maximum allowance for contributions to an approved pension scheme will be at the rate of £800 a year.
On the matters relating to pensions, the Government have noted the view of the House. There are, however, considerable complexities arising from the need to consider the repercussions for public service groups and the substantial implications for public expenditure. The Government have therefore decided that before making further proposals to the House they should prepare a factual paper and place it before hon. Members for their consideration. The House will then have

an opportunity to vote on further proposals in the light of that paper after the recess. The Government propose to discuss linkage of salary in the same paper and also to undertake consultations on it in the autumn through the usual channels and with the parliamentary parties.
In the meantime, the Government are asking the Fees Office to put into payment the revised rates of parliamentary salary for which the House voted on 21 July, with effect from 13 June. These are £11,750 for Members of Parliament, except for ministerial office holders, for whom the rate is £6,930. For the time being the pensionable rate of pay will remain at its present figure of £12,000, but when the House in due course votes on a substantive motion on the revised pensionable rate this will operate with retrospective effect from 13 June 1980. Accordingly, Members of this House and their dependants will not suffer from the delay in reaching a conclusion on the pensionable rate. As, for the time being, the difference between pensionable pay and actual pay will be only £250, the supplement payable to hon. Members to cover the cost of the 6 per cent. employee's pension contribution will be £15.

Mr. George Cunningham: May I first thank the right hon. Member for making this statement and tidying up the many loose ends that exist in this field and for making the administrative arrangements—as it is his duty to do, of course —to put into effect the decisions of the House on secretarial assistance allowance and related allowances? As for the two more fundamental matters voted on by the House the other week—that is, the linkage point and the fiftieths and sixtieths pension point—we accept that those two matters cannot be implemented immediately, that one would require legislation, and that further discussion about them is appropriate after the recess.
However, we expect the Government to take seriously the fact that the House has now voted more than once for the principle of linkage and not to regard that as something that the Government can simply dismiss. We also expect the Government to take seriously the decision of the House in principle on the matter of fortieths and sixtieths as a basis for pension.
That leaves the question of pensionable salary. Here, I must be less kind to the right hon. Gentleman. The considerations to which he referred as leading the Government to reject the decision of the House on this matter were rehearsed during the debate. Nevertheless, a motion supported by hon. Members on both sides was passed by a majority of the House, made up of hon. Members in all parts of the House. Despite that, the Government, instead of implementing that decision, say that they intend to do nothing about it except to bring it forward again for another decision in the autumn.
That is not an acceptable way for the Government, and particularly for the Leader of the House, to behave towards a decision of the House. If it has become the practice for Governments to take that line on decisions of the House of this nature, many hon. Members—I am sure on both sides—will decide that it is high time for the initiative in proposing expenditure of this sort to pass from Governments to the House of Commons Commission. I hope that even at this late stage the Leader of the House will recognise that the decision so wrongly taken by the Government in that case is quite unacceptable, and an insult to the House.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Member has got the whole matter slightly out of proportion. First, I thank him for what he said about the measures that we propose. Clearly, we are taking linkage seriously. It is precisely because we take it seriously that we must have further discussions through the usual channels and with the representatives of the parties. Linkage is one of those ideas that sound fine when one first approaches them, but as one examines them more closely, the difficulties begin to emerge. We must therefore examine and discuss that matter further.
Similarly, on the matter of one-fortieth as opposed to one-sixtieth of salary, on which the House expressed its opinion, complex issues are involved. The Cabinet has considered the matter twice. We came to the conclusion that it would be unwise, at the tail end of the Session, to rush into decisions without considerable opportunity for reflection.
As for the question of the pensionable salary, we are not rejecting the view of

the House; the hon. Member is quite wrong. That, again, was an expression of opinion, and when an opinion has been expressed by the House the Government must reflect upon it. It is our view that one cannot implement that proposal in respect of one group of the TSRB people, who have all been treated equally, without implementing it for the others. Therefore, the House should have the opportunity to consider the facts. Then a substantive motion will be put before the House. The House will vote on the matter, and that will dispose of it.
Therefore, we are not rejecting the opinion expressed by the House. We are following it carefully and, I think, putting forward reasonable proposals. If he reflects on that the hon. Gentleman will see that the House is being treated with the respect and deference that is suitable.

Mr. Onslow: On the matter of linkage, is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us regard it as totally inconsistent that we should at one moment vote for hon. Members of this place to set an example to the country by exercising self-restraint and, not five minutes later, vote to make it impossible for ourselves ever to do the same again? In any consultations that he may have will he bear in mind the fact that that view is shared by hon. Members on the Government side, and that the executive of the 1922 Committee is not authorised to act as a shop steward on our behalf?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Those are fighting words. I must take into account the views of all hon. Members. That is why it is essential to have consultations on this matter with representatives of the parties —that is, with Back Benchers as well as through the usual channels. This is a difficult problem. As my hon. Friend said, there is a strong view that it should be rejected. On the other hand, I must start from the premise that the House has voted for it and that we must examine the practicalities of it.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that an unhealthy and regrettable situation has now developed, in that the combined allowances are well in excess of the salary figure? That must be wrong, so one of the important imperatives for linkage will also be to bring that relationship back into more sensible line,


as well as to give an appropriate increase in salary.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. The allowances in this House are reimbursable allowances for expenses actually incurred. The fact that there is a combined secretarial allowance and research allowance of £8,000 does not mean that every hon. Member is entitled to it. If an hon. Member spends that money he can claim it back; if he does not, of course he would not apply for it.

Mr. Alexander: May I seek further clarification on the problem of secretarial pensions? My right hon. Friend used the phrase "approved pension schemes". Will the mechanics of the system be that hon. Members should get their own quotations and present them either to the Fees Office or to himself for approval? If so, when that is done who gives the final approval? Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of the problems arising over secretarial pensions, presumably paid by their employers, when those employers lose their jobs, as some of us unfortunately do at election time, with the danger of insurance premiums lapsing?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Those are technical questions. If I may, I will write to my hon. Friend on his second point. As for pension proposals being referred to myself, I feel rather as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary felt about taxation proposals being submitted to him. I would feel sorry for any hon. Member who submitted a pension pro-

posal to me. He would have to be a person of great faith—and of hope and charity as well.
It is intended that any proposals should be submitted to the Fees Office. It will be possible for hon. Members to have a model scheme with an insurance company, which the Fees Office will make available, or, if arrangements are made by hon. Members themselves for secretaries, they can submit a receipted claim for money expended on the scheme, and that will be reimbursed. Those are alternatives that hon. Members may pursue.

Mr. George Cunningham: When the substantive motion conies before us after the recess, will it be in terms of the motion that the Government tabled before with regard to pensionable salary, or in the terms of the amendment carried by the House? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the importance of this? If he tables a motion in accordance with the figure that the Government want, because it will be an effective motion it will not be open to any non-ministerial Member to move for an increase in the figure. Therefore, there will be no opportunity to take again the decision that was taken a week or two ago. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to get around that difficulty?

Mr. St. John-Stevas: It is quite clear that what I am proposing is that quite a lot of information will be made available to the House about the implications of this change. The House will have an opportunity of voting for the motion in the terns in which hon. Members have already voted. It is similar to that.

NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE

Mr. Straw: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending closure of Messrs. Pickering Ltd., Blackburn, with the loss of over 500 jobs and the refusal of the Secretary of State for Industry to restore industrial assistance to Blackburn and North-East Lancashire.
Last night, Sears Holdings, the conglomerate founded by Charles Clore, announced that Pickerings of Blackburn was to close with the loss of the total work force of 520 people. The firm makes tufted carpet machinery. It is one of the few firms in the industry which export all over the world and it was a pioneer of tufted carpet technology. It was one of the first firms in the world to make this machinery.
The importance of the matter is that it is not just another run-of-the-mill closure. This was a profitable company until two years ago and, although it has made losses over the past two years, they are insignificant compared with the profit made by Sears Holdings as a whole of £40 million after tax in 1978 and £62 million after tax in 1979.
New management was put into the firm in January this year. At that time the chairman of Sears Holdings, Mr. Stainer, said in the annual report on 30 January that he was hopeful that with the change in management the division as a whole would start to show improved results. Everyone knows that it is impossible to turn round a company in six months, but Sears Holdings has decided to give this firm no time to turn the company round. It has decided to abandon the commitment it gave both to the shareholders and to the work force to try to turn the company round over a period, notwithstanding the fact that the firm has a £3·1 million order book and is not suffering from a major lack of demand.
It is my strong suspicion that this is an irresponsible decision by Sears Holdings. I think that it is premature and unjustified, and I am satisfied that there was no consultation with the trade unions before the decision was announced. Neither the chairman, Mr. Stainer, nor

Mr. Maitland Smith, the chief executive, is even in this country. They are absent abroad. They are not here to justify the decision to the work force. I believe that it is an outrageous and disgraceful decision. It is a cavalier and uncaring way of treating people who have lost their livelihood.
The urgency of the situation is that the decision is to take effect in September. There should be urgent Government action before that to intervene to prevent the closure and the loss of 520 jobs.
All this is taking place in the very week in which the Government start the withdrawal of assisted area status from Blackburn and North-East Lancashire—Accrington included. That is to happen on the ground that unemployment is not high enough in the area. In the past year unemployment in Blackburn has risen by 53 per cent. and will increase even further on the average of 44 per cent. for the coontry. Unemployment in Accrington has increased by 110 per cent. and it has increased by over 100 per cent. in Nelson and Colne. This is happening while in two other industrial areas receiving industrial assistance, namely, Lancaster and Blackpool, unemployment has not risen by half the national average. In areas such as mine which is now without assistance the unemployment figure is twice the national average.
I think that the Government should agree that we should debate the issue so that we can get them to overturn their decision to strip away industrial assistance for the area. Otherwise, unquestionably unemployment will go on rising before we meet again after the recess.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) gave me notice before noon today that he might seek to make an application under Standing Order No. 9 for leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the impending closure of Messrs. Pickering Ltd., Blackburn, with the loss of over 500 jobs and the refusal of the Secretary of State for Industry to restore industrial assistance to Blackburn and North-East Lancashire.
I, and the House, have taken careful note of what the hon. Member said about


the serious circumstances in his constituency. He is aware that I am directed account of the several factors set out in Standing Order no. 9 but to give no reason for my decision. I am fully conscious of the importance of the matter that the hon. Member has raised, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day — TENANTS' RIGHTS, ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Bruce Millan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might be for the convenience of the House if, before we start discussion of the detailed amendments, the Minister could give us some exact indication of what the Government intend to do to ensure that there is a provision in the Bill similar to that in the Housing Bill discussed yesterday. We have had a speech about it, but discussion of this matter is not announced for the week that we cone back from the Summer Recess. There will be difficulty unless the Government can give an assurance in the interim period that amending legislation will come forward. I think that it would be sensible if the Bill were not implemented until the amending legislation is enacted.
I ask for three assurances: first that the amending legislation will come forward in the overspill period; secondly, that there will be no interregnum so that the amending legislation will be applied right from the start of the implementation of the Bill; thirdly, that we shall be consulted about the exact wording before the Bill is published. If that can be done, I am sure that the Bill can proceed with extreme rapidity through this House and another place since all are agreed that it should be so.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Yesterday I allowed something that was not within order and I shall allow the same today because I believe it is in the interests of the House. However, this kind of question should normally come at a different stage in our proceedings.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): Perhaps I could reply to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) after I have formerly moved the amendments, if that is acceptable.

Mr. Millan: indicated assent.

Clause 1

SECURE TENANT'S RIGHT TO PURCHASE

Lords Amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 10, at end insert "or any statutory predecessor"

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant God-man Irvine): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9.

Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the House would like to have an assurance, and I am glad to give him the assurances that he has sought. First, it is the Government's intention to produce the necessary Bill in the overspill period to give similar effect to the arrangements made yesterday in the English Housing Bill. Secondly, in the Bill we shall wish to provide that there is no possibility of an interregnum during which an old person's house might be inadvertently sold. That would be covered by the amendment. I am glad to assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall ensure that the provisions are acceptable to him.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Will my right hon. Friend consult his hon. Friends on the wording?

Mr. Younger: I shall ensure that my hon. Friend is informed about the wording before it is published.
The amendments that we are discussing are purely drafting in their nature. I hope that the House will agree to accept them.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 9 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 10, in page 5, line 23, at end insert "and"

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12.

Mr. Rifkind: These are drafting amendments. They are designed to ensure that the wording of the clause coincides with that which the Committee and the House clearly intended.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 11 and 12 agreed to.

Clause 2

PROCEDURE

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 6, line 15, leave out from "months" to "after" in line 17 and insert—
,where the application is made during the first year after the commencement of this section, or, in any other case, within 2 months

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 23.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendments Nos. 13 to 19 are drafting amendments to various stages in the process dealt with in the clause. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are purely drafting amendments to correct the grammar of clause 2(9) consequent upon the insertion of a new subsection. Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 correct a printing error in the wording of a Government amendment that appeared on Report.

Mr. Millan: The Bill as drafted without the amendments illustrates the extremely complex procedure for which provision is made. In the Government's enthusiasm to take care of every possible circumstance and to ensure that no local authority shall ever have any flexibility, we now have an extremely rigid and complicated procedure. I do not say that I hope that it will work. I hope that it does not work.

Mr. Rifkind: It was considerations similar to those that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that led the Government to believe that the present wording was necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 14 to 23 agreed to.

Clause 4

CONDITIONS OF SALE

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 9, line 32, after "generality", insert "common".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26.

Mr. Rifkind: These are technical amendments that correctly phrase the clause in the manner that was originally intended. They have no policy implications.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 25 and 26 agreed to.

Clause 5

LOANS

Lords amendment: No. 27, in page 12, line 31, leave out "subsections (3) and (6) "and insert" subsection (3)".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment that clarifies the status of a declarator for a loan granted by a sheriff to an applicant under clause 5.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 28 to 30 agreed to.

Clause 13

SUCCESSION TO SECURE TENANCY

Lords amendment: No. 31, in page 19, line 25, leave out
created on the death of a tenant

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment without any policy implications which I trust the House will accept.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17

VARIATION OF TERMS OF SECURE TENANCIES

Lords amendment: No. 32, in page 23, line 39, after "of" insert "section 10 of"

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a drafting amendment which clarifies the cross reference to the Bill to be included in the Housing (Scotland)

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19

RE-POSSESSION

Lords amendment: No. 33, in page 24, line 21, leave out "the date" and insert Act 1969 by making it more specific. "service"

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35.

Mr. Rifkind: These are technical drafting amendments to change the terminology of the clause to attract the general provisions governing the service of notices that is contained in clause 80.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 34 and 35 agreed to.

Clause 23

LANDLORD'S CONSENT TO WORK

Lords Amendment: No. 36, in page 27, line 16, leave out
(including wireless or television aerials)

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agreed with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment removes the specific reference to the obligation of a tenant to obtain the landlord's consent to make the addition to his house of a television or wireless aerial. It is accepted that


these aerials come within the general definition of fixtures and fittings.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 agreed to.

Clause 27

PUBLICATION OF RULES

Lords Amendment: No. 39, in page 29, line 23, after "published" insert "by a body"

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a technical drafting amendment that has no policy implications.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30

LOCAL AUTHORITY HOME LOAN INTEREST RATES

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 32, line 11, leave out from "Notwithstanding" to "the" and insert
anything contained in subsections (1) to (8) above, but subject to subsections (11) and (12) below,

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 41.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 40 provides for the Secretary of State to allow local authorities to charge low interest or waive interest for up to five years when they are granting a mortgage for the purchase of a house that is in need of repairs and improvements. The provision is aimed at encouraging what is known as homesteading. I understand that that concept was supported by the Opposition in another place when the issue was considered there. I think that the House will accept that it is highly desirable, especially in inner urban areas, that homesteading arrangements, which are often popular especially among young couples, should be encouraged. The amendment will achieve that purpose.

Amendment No. 41 enables the Secretary of State to approve individual schemes submitted by local authorities. If it appears appropriate, the Secretary of State may issue an order with the consent of the Treasury on the basis of which local authorities could proceed without the need for individual approval.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 41 agreed to.

Clause 31

LOCAL AUTHORITY INDEMNITIES FOR BULDING SOCIETIES ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 42, in page 33, line 20, leave out "14"and insert "15".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendment No. 43.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 43 is a technical amendment that is necessary to allow building societies registered in Northern Ireland but operating in Scotland to accept indemnities under clause 31 from Scottish local authorities. Amendment No. 42 is a drafting amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 43 agreed to.

Clause 34

SHORT TENANCIES

Lords amendment: No. 44, in page 34, line 39, after "and" insert:
, notwithstanding the provisions of section 44(1) and (4) of the 1971 Act.".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House cloth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48.

Mr. Rifkind: Amendment No. 44 is a technical amendment that is designed to ensure that, although the effective date of a fair rent determination will in future be either the date of registration or the date fixed by a rent officer, the effective date of a short tenancy shall be the date of


the commencement of the short tenancy, which I know is agreeable to the Opposition.

Amendment No. 45 fulfils a Government undertaking given in Committee to scrutinise the clause and eliminate any scope for evasion. It ensures that the right of possession conferred upon landlords of short tenancies shall take into account the particular circumstances of either a statutory successor or a lawful sub-tenant and either will be able to remain in possession until the end of the contractual letting even though the head short tenancy is terminated before that date. Lords amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48 remove certain ambiguities in the clauses as drafted. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Millan: I am not clear about Lords amendment No. 44. The Minister may care to remind the House why the rent in the case of a short tenancy takes effect from the commencement of the tenancy compared with the normal situation when it takes effect, particularly if there is some objection, from the date that the rent assessment committee makes its decision. I should like to know the implications from the point of view of the commencement date of the short tenancy. Short tenancies, by definition, will not last long. It can make a substantial difference to the date from which the tenancy operates. Is the date from which the rent is registered and operative of some significance or effect in terms of determining the date from which the tenancy itself starts and, therefore, the date on which the tenancy will eventually terminate?

Mr. Rifkind: I am happy to clarify the point. The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that in the terms of the Bill a short tenancy is one that must have a fair rent registered. There is no option for an agreement between the parties. Concern was expressed in earlier stages that in the interim period between a short tenancy beginning and a fair rent being determined the tenant might be charged an excessive rent. Although the matter would ultimately be resolved, he would be paying during that period more rent than he ought to have been paying. The amendment was brought forward to meet that point.

Mr. Millan: The Minister's explanation has brought back to my memory that this was the reason that the Opposition put forward this provision. I am therefore, content.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 45 to 48 agreed to.

Clause 37

LIMITS ON RENT INCREASES

Lords amendment: No. 49, in page 37, line 26, leave out from "of" to "not" in line 27 and insert "subsection (2) above "rent" and "rental income" do"

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 55.

Mr. Rifkind: Both amendments are minor technical amendments with no policy implications.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause A

AMENDMENT OF RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES (PROTECTION OF CIVIL INTERESTS) ACT 1951

Lords amendment: No. 50, after clause 38, in page 38, line 8, at end insert—
A.—(1) The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 shall be amended in accordance with this section.
(2)In section 15 (protection of tenure of certain premises), after subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
(1A) This section does not apply in relation to any tenancy entered into after the commencement of section 53 of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980".
(3)In section 16 (protection of tenure of premises not falling under section 15)—

(i)in subsection (2Xc) the words from "and" to the end are repealed;
(ii)for subsections (3) to (8) substitute the following subsections—
(3) The rent for any rental period (that is to say, a period in respect of which an instalment of rent falls to be paid) shall be the amount payable for the last rental period before thend of the tenancy, but subject to adjustment from time to time in accordance with section 22 or 23 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (adjustment,


with respect to rates, services and furniture, of recoverable rent for statutory periods before registration).
(4) Subsection (3) above has effect subject to any agreement between the parties for the payment of a lower rent; and where a lower rent is agreed it shall not be increased in accordance with the said section 22 or 23 but may, notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, be increased by agreement in writing between the parties up to an amount not exceeding the amount of rent provided for in subsection (3) above.".
(4)In section 17(2)(b) (provisions supplementary to section 16 where the accommodation is shared other than with the landlord) for "(5) to (8)" substitute "(3) and (4)".
(5)In section 18(2) (protection of tenure in connection with employment, under a licence or a rent-free letting) for "(5) to (8)" substitute "(3) and (4)".
(6)Section 19(5) (limitation on application of Rent Acts—heritable securities) is repealed.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we may take Lords amendment No. 68.

Mr. Rifkind: Lords amendment No. 50 amends the Reserves and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 to take account of changes to the Rent Acts in the current Bill. That Act was concerned with the protection, in a variety of ways, of people called up in an emergency who might not have an opportunity to get their legal affairs in order before such call-up. It is right that the changes in the Rent Acts extending protection should also apply to such persons. These amendments cover the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

EXTENSION OF RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1971 TO CROWN TENANTS OF CROWN ESTATE COMMISSIONERS ETC.

Lords amendment: No. 51, in page 38, line 8, after the words last inserted, insert
B.—(1) Section 4 of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (1)—

(i)before "a tenancy" insert "Subject to subsection (3) below"; and
(ii)the words "or of the Duchy of Lancaster; or to the Duchy of Cornwall" are repealed.


(b) after subsection (2) add a new sub-section—
(3) An interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown shall not prevent a tenancy from being a protected tenancy or a person from being a statutory tenant if the interest is under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners.
(2) Section 6(3) of the 1971 Act shall be amended by inserting after paragraph (a) a new paragraph—
(aa) in relation to any dwelling-house of which a tenancy granted before the commencement of section B of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 becomes, or would but for its low rent become, a protected tenancy by virtue of that section, means the date of commencement of that section.".
(3) Section 85 of the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—
(a) in subsection (3)—

(i) before "This Part" insert "Subject to subsection (3A) below";
(ii)in paragraph (a) the words "or of the Duchy of Lancaster or to the Duchy of Cornwall" are repealed;

(b) after subsection (3) insert a new sub-section—
(3A) An interest belonging to Her Majesty in right of the Crown shall not prevent this Part of this Act from applying to a contract if the interest is under the management of the Crown Estate Commissioners.".
(4) Schedule 3 to the 1971 Act shall be amended as follows—
(a) in Case 5 after "1965" insert "or, in the case of a tenancy which became a regulated tenancy by virtue of section B of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, after the commencement of that section"; and
(b) in Part III, in paragraph 2 at the end add a new paragraph—
(aaa) in the case of a tenancy which becomes a regulated tenancy by virtue of section B of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, the relevant date means the date falling six months after the passing of that Act; and".
(5) Section 134 of the 1971 Act shall be amended by adding the following new sub-sections—
(3) Where an interest belongs to Her Majesty in right of the Duchy of Lancaster, for the purposes of this Act the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.
(4) Where an interest belongs to the Duchy of Cornwall, for the purposes of this Act the Secretary of the Duchy of Cornwall shall be deemed to be the owner of the interest.".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: This amendment requires the Queen's consent and the Prince of Wales's consent.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 76.

Mr. Younger: The new clause has the effect of bringing within the Rent Act protection tenants of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the Duchy of Cornwall and the Duchy of Lancaster. Tenants who are brought within the Rent Acts by the clause will have full security of tenure and will be subject to the fair rents system. It has been the practice in the past to apply the Rent Acts administratively to such tenants. After this new clause is passed, the tenants will have for the first time statutory entitlement to this protection.

Question put and agreed to.—[Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown, and Prince of Wales's consent on behalf of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified.]

Clause 41

AMENDMENT OF SECTIONS I AND 86 OF THE RENT (SCOTLAND) ACT 1971

Lords amendment: No. 52, in page 39, line 9, after "roll" insert "on or".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment is of a minor and technical nature.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 45

DETERMINATION OF FAIR RENT

Lords amendment: No. 53, in page 40, line 33, leave out from "section to first"to" in line 35.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House dot hagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 54.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments are concerned with the effects of the problem that arose in determining a fair rent. Instead of the words
knowledge and experience of current rents … in the area

being used, it is felt more appropriate that the word "circumstances" should be used in order to avoid any suggestion that the primary emphasis is to be given to this knowledge and experience to the possible exclusion of other methods of assessment.

Mr. Millan: This is matter on which I made a short speech on Report when the Government wished to make a certain change in the Bill that I thought, in one respect, was slightly mistaken, although I approved the general intention of the Government provisions. I am glad to say that the other place accepted my point. I have already acknowledged this fact to the Minister in a letter. I am glad to know that the Government have acknowledged the point. I am grateful.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 54 and 55 agreed to.

Clause 48

CANCELLATION OF REGISTRATION

Lords amendment: No. 56, in page 42, line 28, at end insert:
(2) to (4), (7) and (8)".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a minor and technical amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 51

FURNISHED LETTINGS BY CERTAIN BODIES NOT TO BE PART VII CONTRACTS

Lords amendment: No. 57, in page 43, line 36, at end insert:
(2) Section 16(3) of the 1972 Act shall be amended by adding, after "85(3)", "(aa)

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 60.

Mr. Rifkind: These are technical or drafting amendments. Lords amendment No. 60 corrects a typographical error.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 58 to 60 agreed to.

Clause 61

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSE SUBJECT TO REGULATED TENANCY

Lords amendment: No. 61, in page 46, line 39, at end insert:
(iA) the owner-occupier has died, and the dwelling-house is required as a residence for a member of his family who are residing with him at the time of his death; or".

Mr. Rifkind: This appears to be a printing error. My reference indicates that it should be "who was residing". I hope that it is possible to incorporate and consider it as a printing error.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I can be of any assistance, I am advised that it was sent from their Lordships' House correctly with the word "was". It is a printing error.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63.

Mr. Rifkind: Lords amendment No. 61 is one of the circumstances already included in case 11A which enables the owner of a retirement home to recover possession. It is appropriate to extend this case in this way. The amendment will cover the situation where the owner-occupier who was single at the time of letting subsequently marries and dies. The new ground would enable a member of his family to recover possession.
Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 make an important addition to part IV of the Bill and allow Service men to buy houses and let them meantime subject to the same rights of recovery as a temporarily absent owner-occupier.

Mr. Millan: I do not disagree with the amendments I am not sure that the way in which amendment No. 61 is printed is correct. It does not read correctly. I do not know what can be done about that. It refers to
a member of his family who are residing with him.
I think that it should read
who was residing with him.
I am not clear how we can ensure that the Bill is correctly worded. No doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will guide hon. Members. It seems another major error in this chaotic week for the Government; they cannot get the wording right.
Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are difficult to follow as are all these matters in relation to the question of the recovery of the occupation of houses. It is right to make this provision for Service men. I welcome the amendments.

Mr. Rifkind: This appears to be a printing error. My reference indicates that it should be "who was residing". I hope that it is possible to incorporate and consider it as a printing error.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If I can be of any assistance, I am advised that it was sent from their Lordships' House correctly with the word "was". It is a printing error.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 63 agreed to.

Clause 63

INCREASES IN PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION

Lords amendment: No. 64, in page 49, line 15, leave out paragraph (g) and insert
(g) in section 185(2) after "offence", insert "and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200".

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment corrects an error that inadvertently occurred in relation to the revision of the fines for which section 185(2) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966 provides. The amendment is brought forward on that basis and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause C

DISCRETION OF COURT IN CASES RELATING TO INSTALMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENTS

Lords amendment: No. 65, after clause 71, in page 53, line 10, at end insert—
C.—(1) Where, under the terms of an instalment purchase agreement, a person has been let into possession of a dwelling-house and, on the termination of the agreement or of his right to possession under it, proceedings are brought for possession of the dwelling-house, the court may—

(a) adjourn the proceedings; or
(b) on making an order for possession of the dwelling-house, supersede extract or postpone the date of possession;

for such period or periods as the court thinks fit.
(2) On any such adjournment, superseding of extract, or postponement the court may impose such conditions with regard to the


payment by the person in possession of the spect of his continued occupation of the dwelling-house and such other conditions as the court thinks fit.
(3)The court may revoke or from time to time vary any condition imposed by virtue of this section.
(4)In this section "instalment purchase agreement" means an agreement for the purchase of a dwelling-house under which the whole or part of the purchase price is to be paid in 3 or more instalments and the completion of the purchase is deferred until the whole or a specified part of the purchase price his been paid.

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is an important new clause, which gives people buying their homes by instalment purchase protection comparable with that available to people buying their homes with the aid of a morgage where default in making payments leads to possession proceedings. It gives the courts discretion to allow the purchaser time to remedy the financial situation. The law at present gives the courts discretion to allow mortgage defaulters time to remedy such a problem but it does not give them similar powers where an instalment purchaser defaults. This is clearly undesirable. For example, it might mean that an instalment purchaser who had paid most of the instalments towards the ownership of a house and defaulted at a late stage would find that he had virtually no rights left in the property in consequence of that one default. Therefore, it is thought appropriate that he should be put in the same position as a mortgage defaulter. The problem has not arisen often, but it seems reasonable that such a change should be made. I am sure that it will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Millan: I welcome the new clause. I should like to get rid of instalment purchase agreements altogether. This is a difficult area, but I hope that, having made this useful provision, the Government will consider whether we need in-

stalment purchase agreements at all. Basically, they are extremely undesirable. It would be useful it we could find a way of making it impossible for a landlord to persuade—sometimes even to coerce—a tenant to enter into an instalment purchase agreement in circumstances where most of the cards are in the hands of the landlord, the seller, and very few are in the hands of the buyer. The new clause provides some protection.
The Minister said that there were not many of these cases. Where difficulties arise the landlord—it is a landlord-tenant relationship basically—is usually able to get his way without going to court or going through any legal proceedings, because the weight not only of the law but of the relationship is on his side.
I am not criticising the Government. They have introduced an improvement, which I welcome. It is a criticism of successive Governments that we have not tackled this problem in a wider way. There is much abuse in this area. It has been prevalent at times in certain parts of Glasgow, for example, but it applies elsewhere. I hope that in the continuing examination of the law on these matters the Government will keep this matter under review and will introduce even more radical proposals at an appropriate opportunity. However, that in no way detracts from my thanks to the Government for introducing this provision.

Mr. Rifkind: The Government certainly share the right hon. Gentleman's distinct lack of enthusiasm for this form of property purchase. We are not certain that it would be appropriate to make it illegal, but it is appropriate that people purchasing properties in this way should have the same protection as mortgage holders. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman felt able to welcome this provision. We shall certainly bear his comments in mind in considering whether further changes would be appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2

GROUNDS FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF DWELLING-HOUSES LET UNDER SECURE TENANCIES.

Lords amendment: No. 66, in page 59, line 14, after "in" insert "or in"

Mr Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendment No. 67.

Mr. Rifkind: These are technical drafting amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 67 and 68 agreed to.

Schedule 5

REPEALS

Lords amendment: No. 69, in page 63, line 17, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 17(3) the words", or fail to make such regulations under the said subsection (2)(b) as the Secretary of State approves,".'

Mr. Rifkind: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 70, 71, 73 to 75 and 77 to 88.

Mr. Rifkind: These amendments are consequential repeals. They have no policy implications. I am sure that they will be as uncontroversial as the other provisions of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 70 to 88 agreed to.

Orders of the Day — HEALTH SERVICES BILL

Lords amendments considered.

New Clause A

SERVICES PROVIDED BY RELATIVES OF DOCTORS PROVIDING GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES

Lords amendment: No. 1, after clause 6, in page 18, line 3, at end insert—
'The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 29 of the Act of 1977 (arrangements and regulations for general medical services) as subsection (5) of that section and at the end of section 19 of the Scottish Act of 1978 (which makes corresponding provision for Scotland) as subsection (4) of that section:—
( ) Regulations shall—

(a)include provision for the making to a medical practitioner providing general medical services of payments in respect of qualifying services provided by a spouse or other relative of his; and
(b)provide that the rates and conditions of payment and the qualifying services in respect of which the payments may be made shall be such as may be determined by the Secretary of State after consultation with such bodies as he may recognise as representing such medical practitioners.".'

Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Dr. Vaughan.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I inform the House that the amendment involves privilege.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I was half expecting the Minister for Health to advise general practitioners, if they find their wives uneconomic, to consider sub-contracting out their services to private contract, in the nature of recent circulars in the Health Service.
This amendment was forced on the Government in another place. It pays lip service to the principle that was forced on them in another place, but it is effectively emasculated by postponing the payments to a time of the Secretary of State's choosing, which I suspect will be in the nature of the Greek calends.
The problem is that general practitioners are entitled to claim 70 per cent. of the salaries of assistants as practice expenses. They are not entitled to do that at present if the helper is, in common parlance, a member of the family. A wife often gives great assistance to her


general practitioner husband in carrying out his practice, particularly where the practice is single-handed and is conducted in a rural area.
Hon. Members will be aware of the problems that can arise when professional life involves family members. For example, a secretary employed by a general practitioner would be entitled to have 70 per cent. of her salary paid out of the practice expenses, so long as she remained unmarried to the general practitioner who employed her. But if the general practitioner succumbed to her charms and married her the employment could continue but the 70 per cent. reimbursement would cease.
When I was a Minister I initiated an experiment to reimburse wives in single-handed rural practices. How has that experiment turned out? I understand that it has gone on, is regarded as going well and has been extended for another two years. If it is going well, why extend it? Why not take action on it? The great obstacle to a solution of this problem is the possibility of abuse.
We do not accept the spirit of this amendment, first, because it seeks to arrange salaries by law, which is an undesirable principle. These matters are best left to collective bargaining. Secondly, industrial relations do not only concern justice; they concern tact and timing. In a year when doctors have been awarded a 31 per cent. pay increase, it would be inadvisable if some of their members received substantial increased sums of money, particularly when the Government, despite my best endeavours, have persuaded Members of Parliament to set an example to the country by restricting their salary increase to 9.6 per cent. However, the Government amendment emasculates the principle of the original amendment, and we shall not oppose it.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I know of the great interest that the right hon. Member for Lewisham East (Mr. Moyle) has taken in this subject, and he rightly reminded us that he was instrumental in introducing the provision for single-handed GPs in rural areas.
The introduction of this provision has been a success. About 190 GPs have taken advantage of it, and because of its initial success we thought it right to ex-

it for at least another two years. I should be glad to give the right hon. Gentleman extra information if it would be of interest to him.
It was partly because of the success of the provision and following discussions with the profession that we thought it right to widen the provision a little further. So, from I October we propose that it should be extended to wives of GPs who have professional training—in other words, wives who are nurses. We were concerned about the cost implications, and we felt that it was only right to move in a gentle way and to find out how much money was involved. We accepted the principle behind the amendment and we welcomed it. It was widely welcomed in another place, and I hope that it will also be welcomed in this House. We should like to wait a little while before introducing the provision because we have a financial responsibility, but with that one proviso we welcome the principle, and I commend the amendment to the House.

Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]

Schedule 1

AMENDMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL ON CHANGES IN THE LOCAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE HEALTH SERVICE

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 41, line 5, after 'paragraph 5,' insert
'in sub-paragraph (1)(a) after the words "metropolitan district" there shall be inserted the words "a non-metropolitan district," '

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Sir George Young): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment to schedule 5 to the National Health Service Act is to include non-metropolitan district councils among the specified local authorities that may appoint several of the members of health authorities.

Mr. Moyle: I agree with the purpose of the amendment. It was moved by the Labour Party in another place, with Conservative Back-Bench support. At present, there are administrative methods of including non-metropolitan district representatives on district health authorities, although they were omitted from the provisions of the 1977 Act.
"Patients First" suggested the reduction of local authority representation on district health authorities, with which we disagreed, and it implied that district council representatives could be included only if county councils cut back. In those circumstances non-metropolitan districts, because they were not specifically mentioned in schedule 5 to the 1977 Act, wanted specified legal guarantees. That is why this amendment was put forward. It gives them a bare minimum of representation. We accept that it is a minor improvement to the Bill. It is remarkable that the Government are so sensitive after causing such a massacre of local authority representatives on local health authorities. It reminds me of a famous French executioner who used to make sure that his victim's head was carefully and comfortably placed in the guillotine before bringing down the chopper. Nevertheless, we shall not oppose the amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jerry Wiggin): I beg to move,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 28 July, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it may be convenient to discuss the orders relating to:
The Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme 1980.
The Horticulture Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980.
The Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980.

Mr. Wiggin: After carefully considering a memorandum by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, we felt obliged to replace one of the statutory instruments laid on 2 July with two of the statutory instruments that we are considering today—the agriculture and horticulture development regulations and the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme. We are grateful to the Joint Committee for its advice, to which we reacted promptly, but in doing so we unavoidably laid the replacement instruments rather late. I apologise to the House for any inconvenience that that may have caused. I wish to emphasise, however, that in all important respects the two new statutory instruments will have the same effect as the one that we withdrew.
Hon. Members will recall that on 31 January this year my right hon. Friend laid statutory instruments before the House changing the rates of grant payable under the three current capital grant schemes. He explained that he was making those changes as a first step towards the introduction of new, simplified capital grant arrangements, replacing the existing ones. He promised to present the necessary legislation to Parliament before the Summer Recess. The agriculture and horticulture development regulations and the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme now before the House meet that promise.
The new arrangements are based on recommendations resulting from a study of the administration of the current


schemes made in consultation with Sir Derek Rayner. They are designed to reduce bureaucracy, cut the number of forms that farmers have to fill up, generally speed up the whole process and leave farmers with more responsibility for their own investment decisions.
The keynote of the new arrangements is: "Treat the farmer as a responsible person." He usually finds most of the money, so we want to leave him as free as possible to get on with the job. To help him we intend to have as simple an application form as we can devise, and we are trying to produce an explanatory leaflet which is readable, helpful and, above all, comprehensible.
The changes that we are making will save about 400 posts in my Ministry alone. Of those, 250 will be administration jobs and 150 ADAS posts. The savings will come mainly from cutting out prior approval and by considering claims for grant after the work has been done. That is what happens with regional development grants.
Following last January's announcement, we consulted a large number of organisations and individuals about our proposals for a new scheme. As one would expect, reactions differed widely. Everyone wanted some changes, but the changes spanned a very wide spectrum. We have tried to meet as many as possible of those interests while still meeting our objectives. We have been flexible in our approach; otherwise, there would have been no point in consulting. But we have always had in mind our main objective of simplification.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister said that he had consulted widely and that people had different views about the proposals. Can he say whether any organisation approves of the proposals?

Mr. Wiggin: Yes, my Department. We are surrounded by many differing views, with which I shall deal during the course of my speech, justifying, I hope the action that the Government propose to take.
The statutory backing for the proposals is included in the orders with which we are dealing today. The agriculture and horticulture development regulations and the agriculture and horticulture grant scheme, in effect, consolidate the farm capital grant scheme,

the horticulture capital grant scheme and the farm and horticulture development regulations, on which the existing capital grant schemes are based. If the House approves these statutory instruments, the new arrangements will come into operation on 1 October next. From that date the existing provisions will no longer be needed, so they will be ended by the other statutory instruments which are before the House.
Two of those statutory instruments also clarify the provision, introduced in February, which limits to 160,000 ECU—about £100,000—the amount of investment on which grant will be paid. The Joint Committee expressed doubt about the wording of the provision when the original statutory instrument was laid in January, so we have taken this opportunity to clarify it.
The biggest departure from present practice will be the dropping of prior approval. I think that most hon. Members will be familiar with that procedure. The rule was introduced many years ago and has been retained mainly to ensure that farmers got proper advice about their investment proposals. I think that it has been very valuable, but it has also been very expensive on manpower. It has produced its own problems, giving rise to complaints from farmers on a number of occasions. It delays them when they want to get on. It subjects all their investment decisions to "the Man from the Ministry, who knows best." It leads to arguments over whether it has been breached. After all, a fairly minor or technical infringement of the rule resulted in a farmer losing grant. So, although the scheme had many defenders, it also had many critics.
But farming has now grown up. Farmers and growers long ago learnt the value of seeking professional advice from Departments. They are quite capable of making their own investment decisions. With few exceptions, they are finding much the greater part of the costs, so surely it is right that they should be trusted. Dropping prior approval will give them the freedom to make their decisions and to decide for themselves how and when they wish to invest.
This will not impede the continuation of the close and fruitful collaboration between farmers and advisers. This is good for the farmer and good for the nation,


and we are anxious for it to continue. But it is time for farmers to take on their responsibilities in full, backed, as in the past, by the solid assistance that our ADAS provides.
Our decision to drop prior approval and not to require any form of advance notice has been criticised. It has been said that farmers will be less certain of their grant than at present and that we are disregarding our responsibilities for the countryside and wildlife.
The whole point of the new arrangements is to make them as simple and as automatic as possible. We do not intend to be pernickety. We shall be mainly concerned to ensure that the investment is of a capital nature, because this is a prime requirement of the legislation. The explanatory leaflet will give guidance on the specifications or British standards that will be acceptable. If farmers want to be sure that work will qualify for grant, all they have to do is to meet these standards. Where there is no appropriate standard we shall be looking for a good, sound job.
Although the risk of a farmer losing grant is negligible, I recognise the anxiety that exists. We shall be doing everything we can to set farmers' minds at rest. For example, we shall include in the claim form a check list to remind farmers of the most important conditions that they have to observe. I shall be looking for other ways to allay any fears on that account.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Will there be an opportunity for the farmer who will not, for one reason or another, get the full grant, to appeal against the Ministry's decision?

Mr. Wiggin: As I understand the situation, the administration of these grants is absolutely at the Ministry's discretion. Of course, as the hon. Gentleman will well know, there is always, if not through internal channels, through Members of Parliament, an appeal to the Minister. In this respect I do not think that we shall seek to administer this scheme any differently from the administration of the former scheme. I hope that there will not be too many cases for appeal, but of course, we shall look

favourably where there are borderlines. However, I see there being fewer opportunities for borderlines under this scheme than there were under the previous scheme.
The assertion that we shall be disregarding our obligations in terms of conservation and the countryside is quite unfounded. We acknowledge that our obligation under the Countryside Acts will be exactly the same in the future as it has been in the past. Indeed, we have had extensive consultations with the interested bodies to work out a satisfactory approach.
In the leaflet about the new grant arrangements we shall make it clear that, in accordance with the requirements of section 11 of the Countryside Act 1968, the Minister, when considering claims for grant, will continue, as in the past, to have regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside, including its wildlife. If farmers wish to avoid putting their grant at risk for this reason, it is important that they should consider whether the work they have in mind would be likely to create problems in relation to conservation and, if they are in any doubt, to seek advice from ADAS, which is in touch with the responsible authorities in the course of its work. In national parks and sites of special scientific interest special considerations apply, and if a farmer wishes to claim grant he will have to consult the national park authority or the Nature Conservancy Council, as appropriate, before starting work.
If the authority had no objection or if agreement was reached on modifications the work could go ahead. If there is disagreement that cannot be resolved ADAS must be brought in. Grant would be payable on condition that it had. Here, too, ADAS would, as now, offer advice and try to achieve a mutually acceptable compromise. If agreement was not possible, the Minister would have to reach a decision in principle on whether, if the work were done and grant was claimed, he would have to reject the claim. The farmer would be advised of this decision. If he decided to go ahead without waiting for the Minister's decision, he would be told that grant would be at risk and the Minister's decision would be based on the situation prior to work commencing.
In this context, it must be remembered that the only sanction that my Department has in this matter is whether to pay grant. What the farmer does without grant on his own land is a quite separate matter over which I have no control.
We have considered how we could best assist the authorities which would be notified under this procedure to assess the environmental implications of proposals put to them. For England and Wales we have decided to make available to them on a regular weekly basis suitably qualified and experienced ADAS officers. They will help an authority to decide whether any proposal is likely to give rise to difficulties on conservation grounds and, if neccessary, will be ready to visit the farmer concerned to give him guidance on how to overcome them. Arrangements will be made in Scotland for similar contacts to be made.
These procedures have been worked out in co-operation with the bodies concerned. I should like to record my appreciation of their co-operation and the help they have given us and, I hope will give us in the future.
We originally proposed to apply the special procedures to areas of outstanding natural beauty as well as to sites of special scientific interest and to national parks, but the idea ran into difficulties. The Association of Disctrict Councils was worried about the extra work that might fall on its members, and some organisations representing farmers and growers were concerned about the problems it would create. On further consideration with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, we concluded that it would not be necessary to impose these very rigorous requirements in areas of outstanding natural beauty.
It has been suggested that these proposals represent a change in our attitude to the Strutt report. This is not true. Our commitment to it is the same as before. As we—and our predecessors—have always made clear, ADAS can develop its work on conservation matters only to the extent that resources can be made available. But one beneficial effect of the new arrangements in England and Wales is that by reducing the administrative burden on advisory staff and not taking the savings in full, we are deliberately increasing the capacity of ADAS

to give advice and assistance, on both argicultural and conservation aspects.
With one exception, the rates of grant introduced on I February remain unchanged. The exception is the standard rate of grant for improvements to banks and channels of watercourses in Scotland. The rate was reduced from 50 per cent. to 37½, per cent. in February; but, in order to provide assistance in line with that available for similar work to drainage authorities in England and Wales, a standard grant rate of 50 per cent. for this item is proposed. Because of its special nature, prior approval is being retained for this item, and this item alone.
The coverage of the new scheme is essentially the same as for the existing ones. But we have made some small changes. We are including hedge layering and classifying peas for vining as a horticultural crop. We have also made it clear that deer and goat farming are eligible.
I do not think that it would be sensible to persist to the last with all the requirements of the present schemes, though there are legal constraints on the extent to which they can be waived. Consequently, if the House approves the new provisions, we propose to make transitional arrangements which will give farmers certain options during the period between the date of approval and I October. I shall not detain the House by explaining them in full. We shall be publishing them shortly.
In presenting these new arrangements to the House, I firmly believe that we are heralding an era no less important and significant than the one which began in 1957 with the farm improvement Scheme. That was designed to bring the industry and the Ministry, particularly its advisers, closer together in working out the best way to develop a farm business. This one continues to give farmers and growers financial help with their capital investments but leaves them with greater freedom to decide their own destinies, secure in the knowledge that ADAS is there to help them.
I commend these statutory instruments to the House.

Mr. Gavin Strang: The Parliamentary Secretary has sought to justify and explain these proposals,


but he has done so inadequately. The origin of the proposals is the Rayner project. I have no objection in principle if the Government wish to bring in someone such as Sir Derek Rayner to look at the efficiency of the Civil Service, but when Sir Derek Rayner comes up with cuts which—when subjected to scrutiny—are found to be unjustifiable, Ministers should have the courage and responsibility to reject them.
The proposal put forward by Sir Derek Rayner is impracticable. It is damaging to the agriculture industry and to conservation interests. The advice given and representations made to the Government demonstrate that. Nevertheless, Ministers have sought to ram measures such as these through the Houses of Parliament. When the Department of Health and Social Security proposed to abolish a pensioner's entitlement to draw his pension weekly, there was opposition to the proposal and it was withdrawn. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not prepared to listen to reasoned advice. The best illustration of that occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to name one organisation—among the many consulted—that had supported the proposals. The hon. Gentleman replied that the Ministry supported them.
We oppose the new regulations because there is a lack of public accountability. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say that on the whole farmers' money is being spent. It usually is. Some rates of grant, particularly in the less favoured areas, are very high. Indeed, half the money comes from the State. Millions of pounds of public money is spent annually, and we are entitled to seek an assurance that there will be genuine public accountability. I do not single out farmers as being more likely to abuse the procedures, but they are human like the rest of us. If, in a few years' time, it is proved that abuses have taken place, and if grants are claimed that are wholly unjustified, I hope that civil servants will not be dragged before the Public Accounts Committee to justify them. I am convinced that this is a political decision. Ministers have insisted on pressing ahead with arbitrary cuts.
The agricultural interest can best be summed up by quoting from the National Farmers Union. The article is dated 1 August, and it was therefore made after all the consultations, representations and changes had been made. The article said that
the NFU considers that the arrangements currently proposed for administering the new scheme will result in unnecessary difficulties for farmers and growers; are unlikely, in overall public expenditure terms, to lead to the level of saving claimed; and will act as a deterrent to a continuation of the positive maintenance and enhancement of the countryside.
The position of the agricultural interest is clear and unequivocal: it is opposed to the proposals.
I understand why ordinary farmers are unhappy about the situation. A farmer has no guarantee that he will get a grant for his proposed investment. It is in the industry's interest that an investment proposal should be given consideration and approval by the Ministry. I am all for cutting red tape. There might be scope for simplifying such procedures, particularly at the stage of prior approval, but the Government have removed the principle of prior approval. That is against the interests of farmers, who are the recipients of such grants.
The criticism made by conservation interests is more crucial. There has been widespread criticism from all the organisations and from the responsible people who are concerned about preserving and protecting our countryside for the benefit of this and future generations.
I should like to give another quotation, which is representative of the attitude of all the conservation organisations. I quote from what was said by the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. The document, which was issued to Members of Parliament, is dated 29 July. I note that one of the organisation's patrons is His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. It said:
Farming and conservation organisations are united in their belief that the proposals should be withdrawn and substantially modified to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is aware of all proposals for capital works which conflict with conservation and is therefore able to undertake the necessary consultations and offer appropriate advice to farmers throughout the countryside, not just in designated areas. Meantime, the Orders terminating the present arrangements should be negatived.


That is the position of the conservation interests. Their case was acknowledged in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement. The hon. Gentleman has told us that special arrangements will apply to sites of special scientific interest and to national parks. I do not have time to go into this issue in depth. I am not happy even with the proposals for the designated areas. The central thrust of any criticism on the ground of conservation is that the conservation interest is not confined solely to those areas. We are concerned about conservation throughout the countryside. We are not concerned only about areas of outstanding natural beauty, which the Government have dropped from special consideration.
Farmers do not always have the same view about conservation as do conservationists or the general public. We need some protection. There is a growing desire to enjoy the countryside. We have a responsibility to future generations. That responsibility is being discarded.

Mr. David Myles: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that farmers are so irresponsible that they do not pay attention to conservation requirements?

Mr. Strang: I am suggesting nothing of the kind. I recognise that there is often a genuine conflict. A hard-pressed farmer may be anxious to maximise his productivity and increase his output. Understandably, he would like to plough up an old meadow, but perhaps it has a hedge that is of great benefit to the countryside. It is not that farmers are not concerned about conservation. Usually, they are. Their leaders are certainly concerned about it.
It is a fact of life that a conflict exists, and we are entitled to do something about that at the decision-making level. The system has worked well. The advice of the Strutt committee and of everyone else was that ADAS should be encouraged to increase its responsibility for conservation. I support that approach. I am in favour of using the Agricultural Development and Advisory Service in that area, and not officials in local councils or the national parks.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Strang: No, I shall not give way. I have done so once already. This is an important debate and the sad thing is that we have only one and a half hours in which to discuss these matters. There is great resentment about the regulations.
I conclude with a question about conservation. What is the position on designated areas in Scotland? The designated areas in England and Wales are inadequate. Indeed, we do not want designated areas; we want application right across the board. Will the Minister tell us what areas of Scotland will be subject to this special procedure, and will he confirm that the provisions for the undertaking that a farmer must sign a statement saying that he has consulted conservation interests, and for the arrangement that if agreement is not reached a grant will be refused if ADAS is not brought in, will apply only to the restricted areas? Will he also confirm that there will be no requirement on the farmer to consult conservation interests or to seek a solution to this problem outside these areas? If the farmer goes ahead and does damage, even in the selected areas, and there is an objection or complaint from the conservation interests, will the Minister automatically deny that farmer the capital grant?
In the long term, the outcome of these changes will be damaging for the agriculture industry. If my fears and those of the conservation organisations are justified, and if instances of significant damage result from investments made by obtaining these grants without proper prior approval and consideration of the conservation issue, the clamour to subject agriculture to the normal planning procedures will grow. At present, farmers can erect buildings without making planning applications to the local planning authority. The failure of these regulations—and I regret to say that as proposed they are destined to fail—will lead to a growing resentment. It will be unfortunate if farmers are subjected to the whole bureaucracy of the local government planning system when they seek to erect relatively minor buildings.
I believe that this is an example of the immense damage that Ministers are doing to one of the strengths of this country—that is, the research capability in agriculture, the advice capability and the whole administrative structure of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. We


have seen arbitrary cuts. We have seen offices throughout the land closed and changes made in the structure of the Ministry. We have seen cuts in ADAS. The Minister made it clear that at least 150 advisory jobs will go as part of this ill-thought-out measure.
It is regrettable that Ministers have not yet learnt from the mistakes of the present Secretary of State for Employment in a previous incarnation. He will be remembered for the damage that he did to what was then called the NAS. Although our Minister of Agriculture is allegedly one of the leading "wets", I am afraid that he is not getting away with the modest cuts in his Department. On the contrary, it almost seems as if the fact that he is a moderate means that he must be more arbitrary and swingeing and more insensitive to the agriculture industry and conservation interests.
Because of our resentment of the Govment's whole approach to this great national asset, because we believe that these instruments are a mistake and that Ministers should have rejected the advice that they received from Sir Derek Rayner and because the proposals are opposed throughout the country, we on these Benches will vote against this measure tonight.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: I am grateful for the chance to speak in this important debate. I wish to concentrate on the conservation aspects of the proposal. We must be in no doubt at all that there can be few more important subjects than the maintenance of the richness and diversity of the wildlife in our countryside, not only for our own enjoyment but for the benefit of future generations. Because the fabric of conservation is so delicate in Britain, any Government have a particular responsibility to examine with the utmost care any proposal which might adversly affect that fabric.
I accept the proposals for designated areas—the national parks and the sites of special scientific interest. Here the arrangements are satisfactory. I welcome the Minister's aim to save on administrative costs. We all recognise that this Government must scrutinise every aspect of expenditure I also welcome the move to make the farmer accept a greater

responsibility for conservation on his own farm. Self-reliance is a goal that we must welcome. Clearly, these are all steps in the right direction. Nevertheless, the proposals as they stand will, without doubt, have a bad effect on conservation. All groups which are responsible for conservation appear to agree on this. If the Government genuinely take seriously their responsibilities for conservation, they must take more account of those views, especially as I believe that it is possible to satisfy the legitimate worries that exist and to meet the twin goals of saving costs and making the farmer more responsible.
Let me say first why the proposals are not satisfactory for conservation purposes in non-designated areas. There are two main reasons for this. First, we must recognise—I speak as a working farmer—that most damage is done by farmers out of ignorance. Certainly, damage is not done as a result of a wilful disregard for nature.
Moreover, we all recognise that the economic pressures on farmers make it more likely than ever that they will clear away a bit of old scrub or plough up an old pasture without being fully aware of what they are doing. Certainly, they can consult the Ministry beforehand, and some will do so, as is their right. However, the majority will not. Farmers are independent, and they live in remote areas, far from the rest of the population. I can say confidently that they will want to get on with the job. Therefore, irretrievable damage will be done through ignorance, and it is not good enough to pretend that this will not happen. We must also recognise that it is not just the SSSIs that are important—they cover about 4 per cent. of the country; it is the fabric of woodland, hedgerow and pasture throughout the rest of the country, which knit together these valuable sites.
This brings me to my second objection. In theory, the Minister will be able to refuse grants to the farmer if damage to wildlife is serious, but I do not believe that that will work effectively in reality. For example, if a wood has been scrubbed out a water maedow drained or an ancient pasture reseeded, how can anyone judge the damage that has been done? There is no record of the richness of that site or any way of ascertaining what wildlife existed there before the wood


was cleared or the work was done. Although the threat of refusal of grant in some cases be invoked, it is not sufficient protection in the majority of cases.
If we recognise that the proposals are not satisfactory for non-designated areas, we must ask what can be done. The most practical solution would make use of the prior notification, which was suggested for audit purposes in the consultation document, one month before starting work on field drainage, land clearance and grassland regeneration, especially as action in those three areas has the major effect on wildlife. I propose that ADAS should sift through the prior notifications and pull out those that could have an important impact for wildlife. On the weekly visit to the Nature Conservancy Council, those cases could be discussed and action taken on the significant ones. I suggest that the number of investigations would be a small proportion of the total number of notifications, yet they could have an influence on conservation out of all proportion to their number.
I believe that such a scheme could involve the employment of only an extra 25 people. Even if a few more were needed, the number would not be excessive in view of the impact on preserving the fragile fabric of the countryside for the benefit of future generations. Once a habitat is destroyed, it can never be replaced. The best habitats take decades, and often hundreds of years, to evolve. I recognise that the extra 25 places will have to come from elsewhere. However, as a farmer, I recognise the ability of ADAS. I have been pleased to make use of its advisory facilities. However, in fulfilling his responsibilities the Minister must have regard to the proper development of the countryside. We should get the balance right and devote a little more effort to conservation. I should be happy to receive a little less advice if we could achieve a better balance, which would be for the long-term benefit of the countryside and the country.
I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister can indicate that he can move towards what I am suggesting or bring forward other ideas at least to hold the situation while we see how his major proposals—which I an not criticising—work out. I regard conservation of the countryside as so important that, unless he puts

forward more satisfactory suggestions, regretfully I shall not be able to support him in the Lobby tonight.

Mr. Wm. Ross: I recently had occasion to look at the number of people employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland. In 1940 the number was 157,000. In 1950 it had risen to 161,500. Today it is only 60,500. Hon. Members may wonder what that has to do with the orders before us. A statistical survey of Northern Ireland agriculture published recently shows that 1979 was a had year for agriculture. It shows a 53 per cent. decline in the net income of farmers, calculated in current money terms, which is equivalent to a fall in real terms of about 60 per cent. We should consider the schemes against that background. If workers in any other industry experienced a fall in real income of 60 per cent., they would almost be tearing down this building in protest.
We must view with grave concern changes in capital grants that place an extra burden on our food producers and question closely what the Minister has said, in a press notice on 2 July, the hon. Gentleman indicated that the Ministry had consulted a wide range of interested parties. I may have missed all of what he said today. Perhaps he could list who those people were and what they said. If I understand him correctly, none of them agreed with the Ministry. Whenever a regiment of soldiers marches down the street and only wee Johnny is in step, his mother alone is proud of him. The Minister has put himself in the position of Johnny's mother.

Mr. Wiggin: As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said, there is inherent disagreement on such matters. Those in favour of conservation see all agricultural development as against their interests. Those involved in agriculture see the interests of conservation as inhibiting their industry. There was a broad spectrum of disagreement either side of the issue, and I believe that I can reasonably say that we have it just about right.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman is still out of step as far as I and other hon. Members on the Opposition Benches are concerned.
As a practical farmer, I am most concerned about the removal of the requirement to get prior approval from the Ministry. Previously the farmer sought approval against known standards, and he was on safe ground. It is all very well for the Minister to say that farming has grown up. Many small farmers do not have the expertise or financial resources to seek the advice that they may need before embarking on what would for them be a major scheme. In the past, that information was available to large and small farmers. It will now be denied them. Being able to go along and ask for such information is not the same. The change is a big step in the wrong direction. To avoid quarrels and fights, we should retain the procedure.
To illustrate the problems that will arise, I draw the Minister's attention to the arguments over BSI standard 5502 and its application to buildings such as round-roofed Dutch barns. From 1 January 1980, the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in Northern Ireland will not accept such a building over 30ft. or 35ft. wide. The previous limit was 45ft. No qualified engineer in the Department is prepared to say that a 45ft. building is absolutely safe. It is said that it does not meet engineers' structural requirements.
What will happen if a farmer in Northern Ireland—I am pleased to see that the Minister responsible for agriculture in Northern Ireland is in the Chamber—builds a 45ft. wide building of a type that already exists down the road? Such buildings have not read the engineers' reports. They stand up against all the weather. None has yet fallen down or been blown away. What will happen if a farmer erects a building in the belief that he has met the criteria and the engineers decide that it is not up to standard? Will he lose the grant? That is the tip of a large iceberg, and I fear that such problems will multiply in Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
There will be confusion, because the EEC rates still need prior approval in the form of a development plan. We shall have like structures not being treated in a like manner. That cannot be good for farming or any other industry.
A number of serious and interesting problems arise from regulation 3 of the

agriculture and horticulture development regulations. I cannot wholly understand the regulation, but I suspect that it means things that will not be welcome to many landowners. Regulation 3(1)(a) provides that
an individual carrying on an eligible agricultural business if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that that individual or, as the case may be, the farm manager or other person through whom the business is being carried on—
(i) practises farming as his main occupation
will qualify for a grant. Does that mean that in future the landowner—and this has much wider application in Great Britain than in Northern Ireland—cannot personally apply for a grant and that only the tenant may do so? May we have the exact position spelt out?
The regulation also includes a requirement that the applicant must earn not less than half of his annual income from farming. Does that shut out those who were formally encompassed within the grant regulations? Am I correct in believing that it is a change for the worse?
The regulation also sets out other necessary qualifications:
sufficient agricultural skill and competence, in that he holds an appropriate certificate issued by a teaching establishment recognised for this purpose by that Minister or has been engaged in agricultural activities for not less than five years".
Let us consider the case of a youth leaving school at 18 and coming home to farm, without having the necessary certificate. If his father dies suddenly, will that young man be outside the qualifications, or will there be some way in which proper sympathy can be shown to him? The provision could have serious consequences for young people starting out in farming. The Minister knows the sort of problem that I have in mind.
We have a peculiar problem in Northern Ireland because of our conacre scheme. Children are often young when their father dies and the farm is "let for a long time on the annual conacre scheme. What will be the position of a family in those circumstances? Could it get a grant, or will it be outside the scheme because it is not carrying on farming as a business but is merely preserving the lands in question until the children have grown old enough to take over the running of the farm? Will the children be caught by the five-year requirement when they are grown up? There could


be serious effects for a number of family farms in Northern Ireland, and I should like to be told exactly how such individuals will be affected.
Farmers generally trust the Department and accept what its officials tell them. I am concerned about the involvement of conservation bodies. I believe that they will be a source of great friction, because the instruments appear to be giving power into the hands of persons who will have no financial liabilities as a result of their decisions and no responsibility for their actions but who will be able to put pressure on the farming community. I believe that we should stick to the present system. It has been well tried and has been proved to work. We should not lightly cast it aside.

Mr. David Myles: As a practising, practical, less-favoured tenant farmer, who has availed himself of grants on numerous occasions, I heartily welcome the Government's move. The simplication is something that we farmers who use the schemes will greatly welcome, because the less bureaucracy that we have to go through, the better.
We have considerable experience of applying for grants and we have a good relationship, in Scotland at least, with the Ministry in Scotland—with the help of the colleges—and I see no reason why that good relationship should be spoilt. In fact, I am sure that the proposals will enhance it.
A number of erroneous comments have been made about the simplification of prior approval. It is prior approval—not approval—that is being clone away with. There will still have to be final approval before grants are paid.
In those circumstances, any sensible farmer—and most of us are quite sensible—will get in touch with the Ministry official, whom he will know well, and tell him what alterations or developments are proposed. They will have a chat about it and the official will give his advice. That is how the system works, and it works well.
I once had a great friend in Northern Ireland who held a high position in the NFU. He was on such good terms with officials in Northern Ireland—I admit that the Irish are slightly different—that he always got grants without going through

the prior approval system. I always envied him.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman said that in future he would intend to have informal discussions with an official of the Ministry in Scotland in order to check whether proposed work would be eligible for grant. Does he not realise that the whole idea is to ensure that the officials will no longer be available? The Government are seeking to sack them.

Mr. Myles: Not all the Ministry officials will be sacked. It will be only those who have to traipse all over the countryside checking on developments being carried out by commonsense farmers. Department officials know the people on the end of the telephone. Instead of running around the countryside they will chat with people they know. This can work well, and I welcome it.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) mentioned the National Farmers Union press release and selected his little bit from it. I shall select mine. The release states:
As indicated in an earlier brief the NFU welcomes the proposed replacement of the present minimum income test of elegibility for national grants by a test ban on 'sufficient employment', and the extension of grant aid to cover hedge-laying and general purpose building for fish-farms (though the growing numbers of fish farmers consider that this latter should be extended to equipment and specialist buildings). We also welcome the proposed simplifications of the standards of construction and materials which will give farmers more freedom in making investment decisions.
Unless the whole of the NFU's submission is quoted, it should not be quoted.
I turn to the use of standard costs to carry out a development. Standard costs are the most efficient and valuable way of operating for farmers. However, inflation causes a problem. Inflation has been running at a tremendously high rate and standard costs are always out of date before they are updated. I am confident that the Government will bring inflation under control and that the problem will not exist. However, while the problem is there I urge that standard costs be put on an index-linked basis so that that simpler procedure can be used to a greater extent.
The rule is that half a farmer's income must come from agriculture for him to benefit. The income of some farmers from farming is negligible, especially in


hill areas. Instead of half the income being the test, it should be half the turnover. That would be more acceptable to the small operators in the countryside.
Capital grants are the best way to aid agriculture. They are better than low-interest loans and other schemes used on the Continent. Capital grants are a sensible and more efficient way of encouraging agriculture. Moreover, they are more selective and can be used to encourage the branches of agriculture that should be encouraged.
I welcome the fact that areas of outstanding natural beauty have been removed from the schemes. I live in such an area, and there are conflicts. Where there are conflicts there must be sensible arbitrations and ideas. If only one of the conflicting parties decides, a sensible judgment will not result, especially if that side does not have a financial interest. The side with the financial interest—the agriculture side—should be given priority. I welcome my hon. Friend's remarks.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I shall try to be brief, but we are discussing a serious matter and I have much that I should like to say. I have never heard a more outrageously selective comment than that made by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) when he read from the National Farmers Union brief. That brief concludes by suggesting that the House should throw out the schemes if the Minister is not prepared to change them. The NFU, most wise farmers and all conservation organisations are united not merely in opposing but in critically and angrily condemning the proposals. The Government have placed themselves in a ridiculous position.
Under section 11 of the Countryside Act, which has been endorsed by the Conservative Party, the Government are required to have regard for conservation. The regulations fundamentally change that position. They threaten, by their lack of regard, the maintenance of conservation patterns and practices in Britain. They pass responsibility away from the Government on to the shoulders of the farmers. That is dangerous and could be extremely divisive.
Conservationists are not opposed to the farmer. One of the problems about the

regulations is that division and conflict will develop. In the last few years a remarkable advance has been made in securing harmony between conservationists and agriculturists. The conflict will develop as a result of the proposals. That is perhaps one of the most dangerous aspects.
The role of the Agriculture Development and Advisory Service is to be imperilled or withdrawn. Whatever the Minister says, the result will be that each chancer in agriculture will seize the new opportunity. The chancer will try to take advantage of the new opportunity. If he gets away with it, the responsible farmer next door might feel required to go along the same road because of competitive pressure. As the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) said, that is one reason why Government Members should be worried about the future of the countryside. They should ensure that the Minister provides sensible schemes instead.
I am in regular contact with the conservation organisations. They are all extremely angry and concerned. It was all very well for the Minister to say that the Department backs the proposals, but that was a frivolous response. I am speaking of responsible organisations, not the eccentric "nut cases", of which there are a few in this area. I am speaking of responsible people, who care about the country. They have been treated with contempt. The Government appear to be contemptuous in their response to the Strutt report. The Conservative Party endorsed and commended the Strutt recommendations. One of the report's principal recommendations was that ADAS should have an enhanced role. Now, it is seriously imperilled.
The Minister might say that irresponsible action will not qualify for grant but the damage will be done before the farmer is disappointed. In the short space of time available, I cannot say much more except that this—

Mr. Frank Dobson: There is plenty of time.

Mr. Hardy: I understand that we have more time. I shall cease to rush at the rate that I was progressing. I do not intend being brief now. I was becoming rather tense, but there was much that I wished to say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is time, but I hope that he will not be over-tempted. There is a great deal of business before us.

Mr. Hardy: I accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it would be regrettable if we were to complete the debate in 20 minutes when the future of our countryside and our national heritage was at stake.

Sir Albert Costain: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How long is the debate timed to last?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may continue for one and a half hours after 10 o'clock.

Mr. Hardy: I promise that I shall have sat down by 11.30 pm—perhaps even a little earlier. Indeed, I hope to be sitting down in Yorkshire by 11.30 pm. I do not propose making my remarks at great length.
The Minister must remember that the Conservative Party previously accepted, endorsed and applauded the Strutt recommendations, which foresaw an enhanced role for the advisory service. This measure is a remarkable retreat from that endorsement and one which has not been properly explained. There have been inadequate explanations. There seems to have been an element of slickness in the Government's approach. When their Lordships were considering this matter in another place, they were pursuaded to allow the regulations to go through on the ground that it would be wrong to throw them out before they had been considered here. The Minister knew that there were more independent people in another place, who might have been tempted to throw out the regulations, than there would be on the Government Back Benches today. I hope that Conservative Members will be concerned about the future shape and character of our countryside and will express resentment of the measure by their actions this evening.
The Minister believes that he has made a concession about part of our countryside, namely, the SSSIs and the national parks, but there is no concession for 80 per cent. of the British countryside. There are hon. Members in the Chamber whose constituencies have little of their surfaces

devoted to SSSIs and which may be some way from a national park. But in those constituencies, as in mine, there are areas of considerable attraction that should be protected. Many Conservative Members may think that my constituency is industrial. It is an important steel and coal area, but it is also a county constituency, with 256 farms.
An important part of the agricultural area of Rother valley was created in the great agricultural reforms of the eighteenth century, when there was a longer and wiser view than that exhibited by the Government Front Bench today. The area around Roche Abbey was designed by Capability Brown. He was instructed to apply the eye of an artist and the heart of a poet. It took a long time to create, and it has been treasured and esteemed for centuries. It has given enormous pleasure to my constiuents, their grandparents and their grandparents before them. We want our grandchildren and their grandchildren to have the opportunity of solace and refreshment provided by the British countryside.
In order to fly the flag of St. Michael rather than St. George—that is a reasonable metaphor, given the influence of Sir Derek Rayner on these proceedings—the Minister is prepared to put an enormous risk upon the rural heritage of Britain. It is not simply a question of protecting the SSSIs, the national parks or the areas of outstanding natural beauty. We must remember that one of our great legacies—something that we must pass on to those who follow us—is the diversity and abundance of British wildlife, the treasure that lies within our habitats in our rural areas. That legacy can be found in the vast majority of the constituencies represented in the House. It is wrong and regrettable and will be described in future as criminal for the Government to pursue the course that they are presently pursuing.
Strong words were said in another place. There may be few strong words said in the debate tonight, but the Minister knows full well that there is already great anger in the conservation organisations. There will be even more irritation as conflict and division emerge. Considerable disturbance, dissatisfaction and regret will be felt in the rural areas of Britain. The Minister may not wish me to make the point—but I shall do so—that the Conservative Party has, over the


years, claimed to be the natural representative of the rural areas. In the past 12 months the rural areas have suffered more disadvantages from this Government than they have suffered in the previous century. Public transport has been removed, uncertainties and anxieties have developed, and those areas now see a real threat to the natural treasury which makes life worth living in their localities. I do not think that the rural areas of Britain will readily forgive Conservative Members if they lightly allow the measure to pass today.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment on the Government Front Bench. He is well aware that last year the Conservative Administration promised Britain and the world legislation to preserve wildlife in our natural habitats. We were disappointed. We are to have that legislation next year. We were promised it last year, we may get it next year, but what is happening this year is most contradictory and anomalous in relation to the Government's international commitments.
If the Minister listened to what is said in the country and paid regard to the countryside, he would not press the regulations. He would do what every conservation organisation in Britain has demanded and what the National Farmers Union has requested, and withdraw the proposals and consider them again.

Mr. John Major: At the conclusion of a long parliamentary Session I propose to curry your favour, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by being excessively brief and not reiterating many of the points that have been made. To put my remarks in context, I wish to say how much I welcome a great deal of what is contained in these instruments.
I turn to the area where I have some reservations, and which was touched upon in a thoughtful and knowledgeable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle). My concern relates to the restriction in the role of prior approval and the reduction in the role of ADAS. I take the point and the necessity for staff savings, but there is a broader implication that we must consider. It seems at least arguable that the reduced role of ADAS will be compensated for largely at the expense of shifting that

burden on to other agencies, local authorities and other organisations. I agree that the manpower saving will be welcome, but I question whether the other agencies will have quite the same competence to deal with this important and delicate matter in the fashion in which ADAS has dealt with it over recent years.
I appreciate and welcome the fact that where advice is sought it will still be available from ADAS. I seek my hon. Friend's assurance that he is satisfied that the rump of ADAS that will remain will be sufficient to discharge his obligations under the Countryside Act 1968. The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) began to touch upon that matter. I do not think that he specifically quoted section 11 of the Act, which calls upon the Ministry to have
regard to the desirability of conserving the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside.
My point is simple and straightforward. There will be a welcome for and agreement throughout the House on the proposal to seek to preserve and maintain the countryside that remains. Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the reduced role of ADAS will leave sufficient capacity to ensure that the Ministry can discharge its obligations under section 11 of the Act? If he is so satisfied, will he comment on the apparent danger that a farmer who has not studied the available advice may, with the best will in the world, start a development which, in retrospect, can be seen to have damaged irreplaceable countryside? I hope that he can assure me that the Ministry has studied this matter carefully.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I declare an interest as a hill farmer who has taken full advantage of all the grants and has received great co-operation from officials and others in Wales.
We are discussing the future of the most efficient industry in Britain. I wonder how many people know that we spend less on research for this industry than for any other in Britain. I have read what was said in the other place yesterday—that about 400 people will be made redundant for a saving of about £2 million a year. If that money were to be spent on research I should support these statutory instruments, but that is not to be.
To take advantage of any grant scheme, the farmer has to be able to match it pound for pound, and in the current state of agriculture fewer farmers can do so. We were told last week that the industry's income this year will be lower again—by about 15 per cent. This happens year after year. I am afraid that fewer farmers will take advantage of the capital grants scheme.
Like other small business men, many farmers have to bear the brunt of high interest rates. Until the MLR is lowered by at least 2 or 3 per cent., there is little chance that that financial outlook will improve. That is yet another reason for setting up a land bank from which farmers can borrow at advantageous rates to keep their heads above water.
Another difficulty for those who will apply for the grants is that the farmer always has to find ready money to pay the contractor before the grant is forthcoming. That applies even under the current system.
When the contractor has completed his job, he rightly expects his money. Many of us, when we started on our own, could not take full advantage of the scheme because we did not have the capital to pay the full amount. I hope that the Minister will look at this matter and that in years to come a percentage of the grant can be paid to farmers when the contractors are working on the land.
There are good arguments for and against getting prior provision for grant-aided schemes, but the new proposals could be fraught with danger. There is also great danger in the arrangements for farmers in the national parks, which include a large percentage of the agricultural area of Wales. I am afraid that there will be two groups of farmers. Those outside the national parks will be able to carry on with their schemes, but the others will have to get the blessing of the park authority and other organisations before carrying out a scheme. That is unfair.
I am one of those who believe that we should conserve the best parts of the country. There are beautiful areas in Scotland, England, Ireland and Wales. I have always believed, as, I hope, have most hon. Members, whatever our other views, that, whatever schemes are de-

vised, farmers must remain the guardians of the countryside. They will do the job much better than any other organisation.
For the sake of producers and consumers, I urge the Minister to persuade his colleagues to look again at the present proposals. They are not acceptable to the majority of hon. Members on both sides, if we are honest, or to the National Farmers Union, the Farmers Union of Wales or any other organisation.
Like many other hon. Members, I have received many letters on this subject. It is a shame that we should force through legislation against the will of farmers and every relevant organisation, all of which have come out against these proposals. Therefore, I shall have to vote against the instruments. I hope that the Ministry will bring forward other proposals in the next Session.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: I greatly welcomed the practical, down-to-earth speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. I would compare it with that of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), which, as usual, was full of bitterness. He said that the Government had harmed argriculture, yet as a Minister he did more harm to British agriculture than any other man, with the introduction of succession into farming. That has put farmer and farm landowner against each other. The hon. Member knows that it was introduced in the face of hitter opposition from many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, including the previous Minister of Agriculture.
As a land agent who has sat at meetings between landowner and tenant, I know that the prior approval system was an absolute curse. The time that it took meant that plans became out of date and that contractors who had given an estimate would not stand by it. One had to get another estimate. Then the cost rose and many farmers and landowners said "We shall have a much simpler scheme, although probably not as good. We shall do without the grant and get on with it rather than wait for approval." I can assure my hon. Friend the Minister that many practical farmers will welcome the ending of prior approval as a sensible step.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) is no longer present. Small farmers in my district are highly intelligent and can cope with this sort of legislation. They probably know quite as well as the large farmer, the advisers of the NFU and the secretaries who have a great deal of information. With prior approval so many forms had to be filled in that one needed a secretary, but I believe that simplification will do a great deal of good. I do not believe that these farmers will be unable to cope with that.
I was glad to hear the Minister's assurances about conservation and the countryside. I accept them. I think that the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy)—I call him my friend because we serve on a committee together in the Council of Europe—will admit that, though I am not so outspoken as he, I try to do my best to preserve the countryside. I am extremely keen on that. I believe that a protest lobby has been worked up without the conservation societies really knowing what they are doing.
I am a member of the Norfolk Naturalist Trust and of the Wildlife Trust, which has a wonderful preserve in my constituency, and I find that their members, who are in close contact with the farming, landowning and tenant community, have far more influence than officials from outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) made a good speech, but I disagree with him.
We must realise that the only matter with which the Minister can deal is the grant. Everybody else has spoken about ploughing up old pastures. One does not need to ask for grant in order to cut down a hedgerow, but I fear that far too many hedgerows are cut down. However, that has nothing to do with the regulations.
Therefore, I welcome these instruments. I believe that they will speed matters up and help farmers large and small. I hope that we pass them without delay.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I declare an interest at the outset, since I have been known

to claim these grants. The regulations before us have been dressed up as a rationalisation scheme, but if they are the result of rationalisation carried out by Sir Derek Rayner, and if that gentleman is to undertake a rationalisation exercise in other Government Departments, I despair because of the red tape and confusion that will be created throughout the Civil Service.
This is a phenomenally complicated set of regulations. The Minister said that he intended to produce a straightforward explanatory leaflet, and I shall be fascinated to see how he manages to do that. There are one or two unforgettable passages in the regulations. I shall quote item 8(1), on page 7.
Subject to the provisions of this regulation and regulations 12 and 14 the amount of any grant payable under regulation 7(1) towards expenditure in respect of any work, facility or transaction of a kind specified in any of paragraphs 1 to 20 and 22, in column 1 of the Schedule shall be the percentage of that expenditure specified in relation to that work, facility or transaction, in column 2 of the Schedule, except that in the case of any work, facility or transaction which, in the opinion of the appropriate Minister …
It goes on in that way. There are three lots—

Mr. Myles: Does the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) know the difference between the passage that he has quoted and the one contained in the original regulation that was in force under the Labour Government?

Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) has anticipated what I intended to say. I was about to criticise the farm and horticultural development scheme on which the regulation is based. That is a complicated scheme. If I cast my mind back to the beginning of my farming career 10 years ago, I remember that if I wanted to carry out work on the farm I did it under the old farm improvement scheme. Under that scheme, I simply had to look at a schedule of eligible works to see whether what I wanted to do was eligible, fill in a simple one-sided form and send it to the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland.
Someone would come along from the Department, have a look at what I proposed to do to ascertain whether the work was necessary or desirable, and give me


written approval to get on with the job. In due course the job would be done and the grant would be paid. There was no problem. Since then, this typical European-inspired monstrosity, the agriculture and horticulture development scheme, has emerged. Its complications lead to considerable difficulties for farmers most of whom are unable to prepare their own schemes. They must find a specialist consultant, a member of the college advisory service or ADAS to draft their schemes for submission. It is then decided whether the schemes are eligible under the regulations.
All that must be done so that capital grant may be paid out. I do not believe that this is a clever way of conducting our affairs. Is that what the Government want? Do they want such a proliferation of non-productive, pseudo-administrators on the back of what should be a productive and efficient agriculture?
It is fair to say, in this instance, that Sir Derek Rayner is chasing his own tail, because these psuedo-administrators are in many instances employed by the Government. They are employed either by the Scottish agricultural colleges or by ADAS. To what end are they engaged on all this paperwork?
Our advisers, whether in the Scottish or the English services, should be put to much more useful work in helping the industry to become more efficient by giving constructive advice to producers and growers rather than by preparing all this bumf. The Government should put before the House a much simpler scheme, based on the farm capital grant scheme, with prior approval, as happened in the past. It is about time that we tore up this scheme. I recognise that it was set up in order to tap European funds, but surely there must be better ways of tapping such funds.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang), who spoke of the need to maintain prior consent. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), who spoke of the need to give proper weight to conservation interests throughout our rural areas. I am delighted that on this happy occasion I agree not only with my hon. Friends but with both my trade unions, namely, the National Farmers Union and the National Union

of Agricultural Workers, in opposing these regulations.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am glad that on this occasion we are, for once, debating these impor-thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having met many of the objections that were raised against the February proposals. There are many aspects of these regulations which I welcome.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) say that we must keep our hedges and that the old proposals had worked out well. If his idea of things working out well is that people should be paid for grubbing up hedges, I have to say that it is not mine.
In the part of the country which I have the honour to represent, there are some superb examples of hedge-laying. Competitions are held and great pride is taken in the craft. It is extremely good for conservation, and it is an excellent way of keeping in one's stock. It is a first-class job. However, it is quite hideously expensive. In the past, though not the immediate past, not only were farmers not encouraged to lay hedges: they were actually paid to grub them up or, as my late husband used to say, to cut them off at the knees. That was equally hideous.
In the area in which I farmed for many years—I must declare an interest as a farmer—almost all the hedges were grubbed up. We continued to lay our hedges, and there was a half-page article in the local paper when we laid a roadside one last year, because the practice was so unusual. It had not been seen in the district for many years. I am glad that the interpretation of the regulations is being widened so that hedge-laying is included. There is no finer form of conservation than the hedgerow. It is good stock protection and a wonderful protection for wildlife.
I am glad about the simplification of the standard of construction. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is right. Many farmers despaired at the complications and the escalation in price that ensued in the delays involved in getting prior approval. In despair they probably built, as I did myself, a simpler form of construction and forwent the grant.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) when he says that the standard should be half the turnover and not half the income. In many country areas, especially the fells in Lancashire and Cumbria, it will be essential in years to come for farmers to have ancillary forms of income such as tourism, which is rapidly increasing in those areas, and part-time work in forestry. It would be much better if the criterion was half the turnover of a farm instead of half the income.
I do not like the uncertainty that the draft regulations will involve for a farmer who can just about find the money to do the job if he receives a grant but who will not be able to do so if he does not receive it. If the farmer is not certain that he can get a grant, it would be helpful if a residual capacity to apply for a grant were to remain—a residual option so that if a farmer is in doubt he can obtain prior approval. That will apply probably to only one application in 10. If that is so, it will not cost very much and it will be a valuable addition. I know that my hon. Friend cannot change a draft statutory instument, but he can possibly delay this one.
In general, I welcome the much greater flexibility that has been introduced and the considerable thought that has been paid to the objections that were made to the original proposals.

Mr. Frank Dobson: The last way to commend the draft regulations to me is to say that they have been introduced at the behest of Sir Derek Rayner and that they will result in a reduction in agriculture costs. If my memory serves me right, it was Marks and Spencer that in March of this year first started selling the individually priced potato. That does not commend its cost-saving abilities very much.
I make no apology for contributing to the debate when my constituency is Holborn and St. Pancras, South. My constituents and others who live in urban areas have as great an interest in the future of the countryside as anyone else. That is partly because it produces food for them and partly because it represents a form of recreation and relaxation, in the same way as the cities provide

recreation and relaxation for those who live in country areas.
Probably Exmoor best epitomises the conflict within the national parks between the interests of farmers and those of visitors and conservationists. The Government and previous Governments have not resolved the conflict. That is partly because it is a conflict between the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment, which have different objectives.
As I understand it, the requirement for prior approval for the reclamation of moorland in the national parks will stilt be required. I also understand that a thorough consultation procedure will be required. That is not going far enough. The procedure is not as conservation-oriented as it should be. Secondly, the present method stimulates bureacracy.
In the national parks, and on Exmoor especially, there should be a presumption against the further reclamation of moorland for farming purposes. At present there is no presumption towards either allowing the ploughing of moorland or the retention of moorland. That unclear area of discretion is an area in which bureaucracy flourishes.
Many people will be consulting many others—this will apply to official bodies, unofficial bodies, voluntary bodies, conservation bodies and agriculture bodies—and at the end of the day there must be an individual decision on each issue, based on its merits and without a presumption one way or the other. That must be calculated to be the most fertile breeding ground for bureaucracy, which loves consulting itself and others on matters where it has a discretion and where there are no clear and binding rules.
It would be better for Exmoor—better from the point of view of conserving it, better from the point of view of farmers who would not need to make applications that would not succeed, and better from the point of view of reducing bureaucracy—if the Government set out and maintained a clear presumption in favour of retaining moorland when dealing with its reclamation in national parks.

Mr. Matthew Parris: About three-quarters of my constituency is in the Peak District national park.
When I first read the Government's proposals I had grave reservations. I welcome the changes that the Government have made. I welcome the proposal that an ADAS representative should hold a weekly surgery and should appear once a week at the offices of the national park. That goes a long way towards allaying my anxieties.
There is a rumour in my constituency —I shall be grateful if my hon. Friend dispels it when he replies—that in the national park area the effect of these measures will be to oblige farmers to consult conservation interests when previously they were not obliged to do so. In fact, conservation interests have always had to be consulted. The ADAS representatives used to talk direct to the national parks and there was not so much interface between farmers and those responsible for the parks. I understand that the result of these measures will be to make a direct interface between national parks and farmers.
Relations between the farming community and the national parks used to be rather had. I have the impression that those relations have been improving slightly, in no small, part due to the intense efforts that have been made by the national parks to improve their public image. Those efforts have begun to pay off and relations have been getting better.
The new interface between farmers and the national parks may make it more difficult for the parks to improve their relationship with the farming community. Decisions that might have seemed acceptable if they had come from the ADAS representatives may seem less acceptable to farmers when they come from the national parks. Farmers may be more inclined to challenge decisions from the national parks than from ADAS representatives. That is a problem, but it should not prove to be insurmountable. To what extent is the effect of the regulations in the national parks simply to transfer manpower requirements from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the national parks bureaucracy? Can my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no requirement to increase manpower in the Peak District national park as a result of the new obligations that the regulations place upon the national parks?

Mr. Wiggin: By leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to seek to deal with some of the points raised during the debate.
The speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mr. Dobson) epitomises the difficulty for my Department and the equivalents in Scotland and Northern Ireland in seeking to marry the conflict between the wish of his constituents to use the countryside as an area of recreation with the fact that those who earn their living from farming have to do so in the same countryside. The question of moorland conservation is not relevant to the debate but will be relevant to the countryside legislation that I believe my right hon. Friend may be seeking to bring forward.
The hon. Gentleman reminds me that under the voluntary arrangements that have been in existence not a square inch of Exmoor has been ploughed up except by agreement with the national park authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) dealt with the question of the national parks. I understand the substantial feeling that exists in that part of the world about such matters. My hon. Friend used the word "oblige" in the context of the necessity of the farmer having to consult. That is right. This is a change from what, in effect, was a voluntary arrangement to one that requires him to consult in the interests of the countryside before proceeding. I remind my hon. Friend that we do not look upon this development as necessarily leading to a vast bureaucratic load.
Each week the ADAS officer will visit the office of the national park, go through the applications, remove, I believe, the vast percentage that will not be of a sensitive nature and proceed to deal with the handful that remain by visiting the farmers and talking to them about the issues, proceeding in the same way as in the past by consultation, persuasion and, if necessary, management agreements and such procedures.

Mr. Geraint Howells: Does the Minister agree that previously it was a voluntary action for the farmer to approach the officials of the national park? Now it is compulsory.

Mr. Wiggin: I agree. That is what is happening. The point is whether this will be a disadvantage.
I suspect that Opposition Members consider that national park authorities will not be sufficiently consulted even now. I believe that I can allay the farmers' fears. I understand their fears that unknowledgeable members of national parks' committees will start dictating, without the intervention of ADAS, what should or should not go on. This will not be a question of holding matters up for months. Each week, under our administrative arrangements, there will be a visit, which I believe will deal with the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) gave a welcome to the scheme for which I am grateful. He asked about the review of standard costs. They are reviewed annually—a major exercise. We should like to do so more often at a period of high inflation. We shall look at my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I cannot make any promises.
My hon. Friend and also my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) and others raised the matter of eligibility. Eligibility for the scheme is the same as before. Eligibility is laid down by the Community so that these schemes should qualify for Community contribution. There is nothing that I can do about the matter at this stage.
The hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy), in a passionate speech, claimed, like many of his fellows, to speak on behalf of a wide range of conservation societies. The hon. Gentleman confirms my conclusion, which I have mentioned previously, that in such matters these societies are opposed to capital grants.

Mr. Hardy: No, they are not.

Mr. Wiggin: They are indeed. They are saying, in effect, that development in the countryside is harmful to conservation. We have to ensure that farmers are able to continue to develop their businesses. We must produce food. At the same time, we do our best to ensure that our duties under the Countryside Act are kept.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister does many people in the conservation movement a

great disservice. There has been a great deal of effort to try to ensure that conservationists and agriculturists work together. A great deal of progress has been achieved. The Minister may care to clarify the position, because the conservationists agree with the view of the Nature Conservancy that the Ministry's proposal will lead to a marked and accelerated decline in wildlife habitat. That point concerns conservationists and also a great many farmers.

Mr. Wiggin: I do not accept that argument. The history of the previous arrangements, with the prior approval scheme, has not been very successful in the context of what the hon. Gentleman suggests. We shall require the farmer—not the ADAS man who gave the prior approval—to say that he has considered these aspects.
I do not accept the criticism that we have not considered the conservation aspect. I believe that, at the end of the day, there will be the opportunity for a greater relationship between the conservation interests and the farmer. If that is not the case, there are farmers—signs exist that some are starting to do so—who will say that they are not prepared to have this argument, not prepared to delay their investment, and who will forgo the grant and get on with doing what they want to do despite the interests of conservation or the countryside. I am against that approach. It would be a great pity if that stage was reached.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman knows the industry pretty well. How many farmers can afford not to take advantage of the type of grants about which we are talking?

Mr. Wiggin: By the very fact that they have not applied for a grant, I do not know how many, but two substantial cases were drawn to my attention last week. I have sought information on this point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Mr. Major) raised the question of shifting responsibility. I do not think that this is the case. ADAS will still be available to give advice. To suggest that we are making some dramatic reductions in the total numbers of ADAS and that ADAS involvement will be less is contrary to the facts of the situation.


We are cutting down on ADAS administration. ADAS is currently over 5,000 strong, 3,000 of whom are advisers. The cut in ADAS, which is 150 man-years, will come from less administration. We hope not only to maintain our level of advice but to improve it. I gain the impression that this will be the wish of almost every hon. Member who has spoken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle), who has spoken to me on the matter in recent days, has referred to the pressures on the farmer. The pressures on the farmer by the conservation interests are such that there is a detectable and regrettable antipathy. Ministers on occasions have to seek to resolve these difficulties. We are adopting a procedure whereby advice content in these disputes will be as high as or higher than in the past.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) raised a number of detailed questions about eligibility in Northern Ireland. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was listening to his speech, will write to him and deal with what are Northern Ireland points. Among other matters raised by the hon. Gentleman was the question of building standards. British Standard 5502 is a highly complex document, but all professional firms, and presumably contractors, will understand its implications. There will be no worry about buildings built to that standard. We are not saying that because a building is not up to standard we shall reject the grant. We shall give advice and suggest how the standard might be maintained. We shall use good, common sense. I hope that there will be no difficulty there.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there was a change in the operation of the FHDS. The change is not that the plan will not need prior approval, because it will. The farm plan will get approval as in the past, but the buildings and capital investment which are part of the plan will not require prior approval.
The hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Howells) mentioned research. I hope that he will look at this separate subject and recognise that, where it is possible to make savings in one part of a Department, there is a balancing element. We

have made some cuts in research, but I believe them to have been as modest as possible. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the amount of agricultural research which is going on are not well founded.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins), with his customary deep knowledge of the countryside, has welcomed the practicalities of the scheme.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) referred to Sir Derek Rayner chasing his tail and then argued extensively that the Government should seek to reduce bureaucracy and to increase advice. That is precisely what we are doing. If anyone is chasing his tail, I suggest that it is the hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster shares my enjoyment of a well cut and layered hedge. Making the layering of hedges available for grant is a step forward.
My hon. Friend referred to contingency approval. I understand her concern about this matter. Where there is doubt, the farmer concerned will be well advised to seek guidance from ADAS. Provided that advice is complied with, I cannot see that the other hand of the Department is likely to turn down the resulting application. I suggest that in practice that point has been met. We do not foresee the turning down of too many grants for the reasons put forward by my hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) raised the important matter of public accountability. It has exercised my mind considerably. However, he will know from his previous experience that we must satisfy the Treasury, and it is in agreement with the scheme as it has been announced. We shall certainly watch this matter with our customary audit procedures. There will be sampling, inspections and checks in the normal way. The Public Accounts Committee will breathe heavily on us in the ordinary way. However, I believe that we have taken all possible precautions in the same way as they were taken before.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about Scotland. The prior notification procedures will apply in SSSIs and, when


they come into being, national scenic areas. In general, the same procedures and thoughts will be applied to the scheme in Scotland as apply here, bearing in mind that there are some differences in the advisory services there. My noble friend the Minister of State will be altering the scheme largely to deal with those slight differences.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the necessity for conservation. I hope that I have dealt with that aspect sufficiently both in my opening remarks and in replying to the debate. In view of the conflicting interests, we have emphasised the need for and provided the manpower to give advice. I do not think that every ADAS officer has a magical ability to deal with all conservation problems, but he has the trust of the farmer and to a large extent of the conservation bodies, though I suspect that that trust has been elevated substantially during the debate.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman referred to the cuts. My Department can, will and intends to bear its share of the full economies which must take place across Whitehall. In making these cuts, we have sought to impinge upon the farming community as little as possible. This is a fundamental change in bureaucracy, organisation and form-filling. We believe that the farming community can and should be trusted to make its own decisions.

I remind the House that the only sanction that we have is whether we pay the grant. Some will choose to ignore that sanction and go the other way. However, this is a good scheme. It is an improvement on the old one.

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: My hon. Friend said that one sanction was to refuse to pay the grant. Will he elaborate on that point? I do not see how it will work. What criteria will be applied? For example, a woodland or small copse may have been destroyed and there may be no evidence of what existed before. How can one say what damage there has been when, so to speak, the horse has bolted?

Mr. Wiggin: My hon. Friend knows that if a wood is an SSSI and has been allocated as such, prior notification will be involved. As I have said, the applicant will have to say that he sought to consider countryside effects. If, as a result of his doubts, he has not sought the advice of ADAS and has deliberately flouted common sense, we shall reserve the right to withhold the grant. That is made clear in the explanatory leaflet, and it will be carried out.
I emphasise again that the purpose of the scheme is advice, not bureaucracy. I commend it to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 45.

Division No. 469]
AYES
[7.35 pm


Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)
Fenner, Mrs Peggy
Neale, Gerrard


Berry, Hon Anthony
Goodhew, Victor
Neubert, Michael


Biggs-Davison, John
Gow, Ian
Newton, Tony


Blackburn, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Normanton, Tom


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley


Bright, Graham
Hawksley, Warren
Page, Rt Hon Sir Graham (Crosby)


Brinton, Tim
Henderson, Barry
Page, Richard (SW Hertfordshire)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Grantham)
Parris, Matthew


Brooke, Hon Peter
Hurd, Hon Douglas
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Brotherton, Michael
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Patten, John (Oxford)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Sc'thorpe)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Bruce-Gardyne, John
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick
Lawrence, Ivan
Proctor, K. Harvey


Buck, Antony
Le Marchant, Spencer



Cadbury, Jocelyn
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhodes James, Robert


Carlisle, John (Luton West)
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Clegg, Sir Walter
MacGregor, John
Rossi, Hugh


Colvin, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Cope, John
Major, John
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman


Costain, Sir Albert
Mellor, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Cranborne, Viscount
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Silvester, Fred


Dorroll, Stephen
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove &amp; Redditch)
Speed, Keith


Dover, Denshore
Moate, Roger
Speller, Tony


Dunn, Robert (Dartford)
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)


Elliott, Sir William
Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcesetershir)


Eyre, Reginald
Murphy, Christopher
Sproat, Iain


Faith, Mrs Shella
Myles, David
Squire, Robin




Stanbrook, Ivor
Waddington, David
Winterton, Nicholas


Stevens, Martin
Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Strading Thomas J.
Ward, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Wickenden, Keith
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton and


Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Wiggin, Jerry
John Wakeham.




NOES


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bidwell, Sydney
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Kilfedder, James A.
Snape, Peter


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lyons, Edward (Bradford west)
Soley, Clive


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Spearing, Nigel


Dobson, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penlstone)
Spriggs, Leslie


Dormand, Jack
McNamara, Kevin
Strang, Gavin


Dubs, Alfred
McQuade, John
Tinn, James


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Urwin, Rt Hon Tom


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, James
Winnick, David


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Paisley, Rev Ian
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Hamilton. W. W. (Central Fife)
Palmer, Arthur



Hardy, Peter
Parker, John



Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Penhaligon, David



Holland, Stuart (L'beth, Vauxhall)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch (S Down)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)
Mr. George Morton and


Howells, Geraint
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney North)
Mr. Terry Davis.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Agriculture and Horticulture Development Regulations 1980, which were laid before this House on 28 July, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Agriculture and Horticulture Grant Scheme 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 1072), a copy of

which was laid before this House on 28 July, be approved.
That the Horticulture Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 929), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.
That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (No. 2) Scheme 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 930), a copy of which was laid before this House on 8 July, be approved.—[Mr. Wiggin.]

Orders of the Day — COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. R/2988/75, R/2519/77, R/2520/77, R/1514/78 and 8959/80 on structural policy, No. 8583/80 on catch reporting, No. 8957/80 on conservation, No. 8958/80 on 1980 quota allocations, No. 9047/80 on quota allocation criteria and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered memorandum of 21 July 1980 on access: and supports the Government's objective of a satisfactory overall settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy in its own right at the earliest possible opportunity which takes adequate account of the need to conserve and safeguard fish stocks and of the overall requirements of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I have to inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 22 July 1980 and corrigendum of 1 August 1980, which relate to document No. 9047/80 and which are also relevant.
The official text of document No. 9129/80 on access has now been received, and it was made available in the Vote Office on Wednesday. In essence, it is identical to the unnumbered illustrative text that was originally supplied in relation to the unnumbered explanatory memorandum on access that is referred to in the motion.
I welcome the opportunity for this debate because it comes at an important time. In the autumn there will be a series of important meetings of Fisheries Councils in Europe, when decisions may be taken. I very much welcome this opportunity for the House to express its views on these vital negotiations.
The Government's objectives in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy remain as we have stated them on many previous occasions, from this Box and elsewhere. I should like to summarise the four essential principles as I see them. First, we believe that we must have an

adequate exclusive zone. Secondly, we must have further preferential access beyond that exclusive zone. Thirdly, we must have a proper control system. Fourthly, we must have a substantial share of the total allowable catch which takes account of the fact that we are contributing most of the water and most of the fish to the total waters of the EEC.
Through recent Councils, particularly through bilateral contacts which my right hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland have had, I believe that at present, and certainly compared with the position 15 months ago, there is a very much better understanding in Europe of the United Kingdom's position and of its aspirations in relation to the renegotiation of the CFP. Indeed, on many areas —this was particularly apparent at the last Fisheries Council in July—there is an identity of interest between some of our objectives and those of other countries. They have similar interests to our own. I believe that on that basis we have an opportunity for progress which has not been there previously.
I should also like to refer to the Foreign Affairs Council on 30 May, when an agreed text on fisheries was issued following that meeting. I draw the attention of the House to three aspects of it. First, that agreement urged a settlement of the CFP by the end of this year. This is something that we support, because in a period of uncertainty it is very difficult for any industry to continue on the present basis. Provided that we get a satisfactory settlement—I emphasised that in what I said earlier—it is right that we should try to seek a settlement by the end of this year.
Secondly, the document contains a number of criteria that are to be used in the negotiations towards that settlement. All those criteria are acceptable in relation to our objectives in the renegotiations.
Thirdly, that agreement from the Foreign Affairs Council makes it clear that there is no linkage with the budget and that the fisheries policy has to be settled on its merits.
We now have new proposals from the Commission on quotas, on conservation and on structures. We also have a paper —I make that distinction on purpose—on access.
Looking ahead to the future meetings of Fisheries Councils, to which I referred a few moments ago, there is a Fisheries Council at the end of September. We would hope at that Council to see conservation measures discussed and to see some progress made on that matter then. There is likely to be a further Fisheries Council in October. At that Council we would expect to see more substantive discussions, and we would hope to see progress on the crucial matters of quotas and access.
It is for that reason that I particularly welcome the opportunity for this debate this evening, because these Councils are to take place during September and October.

Mr. J. Grimond: I agree with the Minister that it is necessary to get an agreement on the CFP. If a policy were to be agreed in October or November, when does the Minister think that it would come into force concerning quotas and conservation?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That would depend upon a number of factors. For example, if the right hon. Gentleman looks at the document on conservation he will see that different items of conservation come into force on different dates. Therefore, there would be different dates for different parts of the agreement. What I should like to make clear—this is probably the point that underlies what the right hon. Gentleman is saying—is that we shall not agree to individual items. We want to see a package as a whole that is acceptable. We may make progress on individual items of the package, but we want to be able to reserve our judgment on the package as a whole.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I wonder whether the Minister would answer the counterpart to the question put by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). What will happen if a CFP is not agreed this year?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The purpose is to try to negotiate a satisfactory CFP. In the event of not getting a satisfactory CFP, we shall be in a different situation. The United Kingdom will then have to reassess the situation, but at present we are in the process of negotiating a CFP.

I believe that that is what we should have our attention on now.

Mr. James Johnson: I do not wish to anticipate the Minister's argument, but is it not a fact that if we do not get a genuine settlement, with the Nine signing together, by old year's night of this year and we come to new year's morning, we shall have to take what is there? Is that not so?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That is not true. The document to which I referred earlier refers to the date by which it is hoped that the new policy can be negotiated.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: There will be opportunity later for speeches. I have very helpfully given way for three interventions. I would rather get on. We have time for the debate. I shall be very happy to deal with any detailed points at the end of the debate, with the permission of the House.
I have mentioned the new proposals before us, and I should like now to deal with them. In some respects these proposals are an improvement on what has been on offer previously. There are some aspects—I shall develop this as I go along—on which we have considerable reservations. I should like, therefore, to deal fairly quickly with the different proposals before us—with the proviso that I hope to be able to speak again at the end of the debate.
First, I should like to deal with the document on conservation—No. 8957/80. I deal with it first because that is the document on which we expect substantive discussion in the Fisheries Council in September. This document is an improvement on what has been available up to now. This is particularly important in relation to white fish mesh sizes, which is an important aspect of our fisheries. What I find most encouraging of all about this document is that we have in it a recommendation on conservation that is much more firmly based on scientific advice than previous proposals have been. This has always been one of the firm bases on which successive Governments have


argued the case for a CFP. In this respect, this document is an improvement
We believe that progress is possible on this matter. This answers the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). This is the one indication that, as long as the broad objective is achieved of increasing particular mesh sizes for more effective conservation, there might be some room for movement on the phasing in of different mesh sizes, perhaps even variations for different areas, to take account of current practice.
A particularly unsatisfactory aspect concerns the important pout box in the North Sea. Evidence over the years shows that it is an important conservation measure. However, we have recently received a court decision which does not help the United Kingdom. We are considering that decision and how to negotiate on it.
Secondly, I should like to deal with catch reporting, which is referred to in document No. 8583/80. A considerable amount of detailed work remains to be done. It is a crucial aspect of the common fisheries policy. As I am sure the House will agree, and as anyone who knows about fishing will agree, if a common fisheries policy is to be effective there must be common standards. Those standards must be properly applied by all countries, Governments and industries within the EEC. Our objective in relation to catch reporting is to obtain an effective system. If a system is not effective, it is not worth anything. Negotiations are taking place because we want a system that does not add any unnecessary administration and bureaucracy. In addition, the effectiveness of the system must not be sacrificed.
Thirdly, quotas are a crucial and "crunch" area in the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. Documents Nos. 9047/80 and 8958/80 are involved. I shall deal first with document No. 9047/80, which deals with the principles that should be used when calculating quota allocations. Most of the criteria laid down in the document are sensible, and we agree with them. However, we are concerned about some of them and about the way in which they might be

applied. I shall mention only four of those criteria.
First, we do not believe that sufficient allowance has been made for losses sustained in third country waters. The United Kingdom is in a different position, in terms of magnitude, from any other European nation. The German fishing industry is the nearest in size to ours, and it is far behind us. We are worried that sufficient weight will not be given to that factor.
Secondly, there must be more emphasis on the discounting of industrial catches, particularly excessive by-catches of edible species in industrial fishing. Over the past year I have discovered that European industries with a greater tradition of industrial fishing than Britain are becoming more aware that the emphasis should be placed on catching for edible purposes. We are dealing with a scarce resource. We must husband it and look after it properly. Although that is mentioned in the document, insufficient weight has been given to it.
Thirdly, we are concerned about the preferences applied to the Hague areas. Those areas resulted from an agreement in 1976, and they involve the waters around Northern Ireland and the North Coast of Britain and as far down the North-East coast as Bridlington. Reference is made to Hague preferences in the calculation of quotas. We are concerned about the way in which the Hague preferences are applied, particularly when two countries with such preferences lie opposite each other, such as Britain and the Irish Republic. We are not happy about the way in which the preferences are applied, and we have reservations about them.
Fourthly, as the common fisheries policy has not been negotiated, the fishing industry is suffering from uncertainty. If an agreement on quotas is to be reached, we must ensure that the quotas have a certain degree of staying power and are not agreed for just one year. In that way our industry and the industries of other countries will have some certainty about future opportunities. Sufficient emphasis has not been given to that in the Commission's criteria.
The second document on quotas, about which there has been much comment in the fishing press and elsewhere, is No.


8958/80. It puts forward figures and percentages for the possible quota allocations to the different countries within the Community. When my right hon. Friend made a statement after the last Fisheries Council meeting, he stressed that the figures were merely illustrative of the criteria. They are not formal proposals from the Commission. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may laugh, but that is precisely what was said in the Council, and outside it, in July. The position is clear and the figures can be negotiated.

Mr. Robert Hughes: After four or five years of negotiations under successive Governments on the so-called renegotiation of the common fishery policy, why are we still dealing only with illustrative proposals?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The Labour Government made it impossible for renegotiation to take place. The fault lies with the Opposition. At least we have proposals which illustrate how the calculations will work. Now, and in the autumn, we shall seek more definite quota proposals. The figures are useful. In some areas there has been an improvement in the allocation of some important stocks, such as mackerel, haddock and whiting, but we have considerable reservations about the proposals. Indeed, we have some simple arithmetical reservations. We have made strong representations to the Commission. In addition, we have made plain to the Council and to the Commission that more discussion is required before further progress can be made.
I should like to turn to structures and to document No. 8959/80, which replaces all the other documents listed under the "structures" heading. The proposals are interesting. They allow financial contributions for the restructuring of the fishing industries of member countries. I shall not pass any comment on the proposals at this stage. We shall judge them by their suitability for the United Kingdom industry. Whether they are suitable for our industry will depend on the outcome of other aspects of the negotiations, such as those on access and quotas. Until we know the position, it will be difficult to judge how effective and useful the proposals are.
While we welcome the commitment of Community funds, we must ensure that

those funds are used in the most effective way.

Mr. David Penhaligon: Did the conversations about access include the Soviet Union's access to the mackerel fishery off Cornwall? Have the Government made up their minds about whether the Russians will be allowed in this year?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Neither the Soviet Union nor any other Eastern European country fishes within the 12-mile limit off the South-West coast. Nor do they fish in the remainder of the limits. That is worth putting on record, because if one listened to hon. Members one would think that the Russians were fishing for mackerel in that area. I know that there is concern. Considerable efforts have been made, both locally and by the Government, to do something about the way in which those activities are conducted. However, if we did not have markets for the products of that fishery it would have a considerable effect on the constituents of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and on other areas. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that.
I have spoken on the issues covered by the documents before us tonight. These issues are crucial to negotiations on the common fisheries policy. While these negotiations are continuing, there is great uncertainty in our fishing industry. In these circumstances, the industry cannot plan for the future and there is an obligation on the Government to help it through this period of renegotiation. Government aid to the fishing industry in the current year amounts to £23½ million. Because of the uncertainty during the period of negotiation on the CFP, we now propose further aid of just over £14 million up to the end of the financial year. This brings to over £37 million the total assistance that the Government are making available to the fishing industry. We believe that it is imperative that the United Kingdom fishing industry is kept viable, in order to meet the opportunities that will be open to it when the negotiations on the CFP are completed. To fail in this would undermine what we have been working for in the Community. This new aid will sustain the industry during the period of the negotiations.
The aid will take the form of payments to vessel owners. We have responded


swiftly to the industry's case—it is less than one month since we received its final figures. We shall now move equally quickly to complete our consideration of the details of the new scheme. Our officials will meet representatives of the industry very shortly to outline the proposed scheme. My right hon. Friend has discussed the urgent need for this measure with the European Commission and will notify it formally of the details, which will be worked out in consultation with the industry.
We also propose to make a further £900,000 available this year for replacement fishery protection vessels. This will enable contracts to be placed for the two vessels currently being built by Hall Russell of Aberdeen. I know that that news will be welcome in Aberdeen. I already hear approving noises from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who is sitting behind me.
Parliamentary approval for the new scheme and for the consequential increase of £15 million in cash limits to cover both the aid and the additional fishery protection costs will be sought in Supplementary Estimates. Pending that approval, the new expenditure on fisheries aid will be met by repayable advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Mr. Bruce Millan: The Minister of State has given a precise figure of just over £14 million. He must have some idea of the form that that aid will take. He must be able to give some more information. May we have some idea of the broad lines of the scheme of assistance, even though the details have yet to be worked out?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am happy to respond to that request. Our purpose is to use the money by paying it in aid to vessel owners on the basis of individual vessels. We believe that that takes account of the varying types of vessel in the fishing industry and the different costs that are involved in different sections of the industry. There are a number of different ways in which this can be applied, and it is thought that the ways that will be used will no the all that different from those used in the past. For example, aid could be paid in relation to the size of the vessel and its type of operation.

We envisage the type of scheme of which we already have experience in this country.
The right hon. Gentleman must understand that I do not wish to go into more details of the scheme tonight. The needs of different sections of the industry vary, and we want to consult the industry about the best way that the aid can be applied most effectively to sustain the fishing industry during the course of the renegotiations on the CFP.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes).

Mr. McNamara: The Minister has given way twice to my hon. Friend but not once to me.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does that mean that the aid that the Minister has just announced will be expended in a different way from the £2 million that was given a few months ago?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The money that was given a few months ago was in two forms: first, £1 million for exploratory voyages; and, secondly, £2 million which was applied through fish producer organisations. We intend to apply this money differently.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister of State give a broad indication of the division of this money between the different fleets? For example, how will it be divided between the deep water, middle water and inshore fleets? In that way, we could get some indication of what was intended for our own areas.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am afraid that I cannot do that. That is precisely the area in which we must consult the industry. One thing that has marked the fishing industry under successive Governments has been the high degree of consultation between the Government and the industry. That is particularly important where there is such great variety within the industry, not only in the kind of fishing but in the areas in which it operates. I am not trying to hide anything from the House, but we believe that the details of the scheme are best worked out in consultation with the industry, as has happened in the past on the question of aid.
In conclusion, I believe in what I have said, particularly for the longer term. We have before us crucial negotiations in which we hope to achieve a satisfactory settlement of the common fisheries policy. While the aid question is important, I hope that both the House and the industry will not lose sight of the important long-term objectives which last not just for the next six or nine months but long into the future and which are crucial to the success and well-being of the industry.
In the shorter term, both in relation to what the Government did in response to the industry in April this year and by a real response again in terms of hard cash to meet the needs of the industry in the renegotiation period, we have shown not only to the House but to the fishing industry and to the country that the Government are fully committed to the support of the United Kingdom fishing industry.

Mr. Gavin Strang: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add,
and in particular, maintains the need to secure exclusive access within 12 miles, preferential access within 12 to 50 miles, and an overall share of fish for United Kingdom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters and the contribution made by United Kingdom waters to total European Community fish resources.'.
The Minister of State referred to the importance of this debate. We would all agree that ideally we would have liked a statement on the aid package followed by a full day's debate on these very important documents. I make no complaint about the arrangements, however, because we realise that near the end of the Session it is necessary to encapsulate the debate in this way. We are discussing issues of immense importance to the fishing industry. In fact, we are talking about its very survival, in both the short and the long term.
The Minister of State announced that the Government intend to give £14 million of aid to the industry. I address my remarks to that matter. The fishing industry is in a desperate state. There is no doubt that it is on the verge of collapse and there is no doubt that our fishermen would not take action unless the position was serious. They are not

militant by nature, but what they have done shows their fears about their livelihoods being in jeopardy.
The Government's announcement must be judged against the state of crisis in the industry. It must also be judged against the demands of the industry. I think that the request for £35 million of aid to sustain the industry to the end of the year was probably a reasonable and objective assessment of the industry's needs.
The industry was anxious to outline realistically the financial basis that it needs purely to survive. I am glad to see that the Minister is nodding assent. We have to compare the aid offered with the industry's £35 million estimate and the extent of the crisis.
The £14 million should be accepted by the industry. The Government are acting in good faith. I hope that when the fishermen's organisations meet tomorrow and on Saturday they will accept the £14 million and continue fishing. However, that sum should not be the end of the story this year. It should be viewed as an urgent and necessary lifeline to sustain the industry until Parliament resumes at the end of October. A great deal can happen in that short time. The Government's response is a fair one, and I hope that the fishermen will not institute unofficial action similar to that last month.
We must also consider the very cheap imports that are doing immense damage to the market. I hope that the Government have not decided against temporary action. We accept that there cannot be a ban on fish imports. Many sections of the industry are dependent on imports for processing. However, fish is coming to this country from inside and outside the Community at unrealistic prices, which is enormously damaging to our industry. The action within the Community to increase protection was inadequate. I hope that the Government will not accept the increase in the reference prices as adequate for the future.
The documents are immensely important to the industry. First, let us consider the proposals on the allocation of fish to member States. We should be under no illusion that the bargain that may be struck over quotas is vital to the future of the United Kingdom fishing industry. Although the quotas relate only to 1980, they will form the basis for


quotas in subsequent years. It is crucial to get them right and to ensure that we get a fair share of the fish. As they stand, the proposals are wholly inadequate. Over 60 per cent. of the Community catch is in British waters. Our fishing industry is asking for approximately 45 per cent. That is a realistic demand, which takes account of the pressures on Britain within the Community. Our industry wants a resolution of the matter. With such a large proportion of the fish in British waters, 45 per cent. is reasonable. It is argued that the Community proposals amount to about 30 per cent. I shall not go into details. What counts are the allocations for the species. I use overall figures only to indicate how far short of our needs the proposal falls. The quotas for many species must be improved.
There is need for exclusive access in the 12 miles adjacent to our coast. That is vital—and we mean exclusive. Although sections of the industry argue for exclusive access for 50 miles or more, we consider that 12 miles is realistic. We must phase out historic rights within that limit. That will not be achieved overnight. However, we must limit those rights, so that that 12 miles becomes genuinely exclusive to British fishermen.
Equally important is our stance over the 12-to-50 miles argument. The previous Government argued for a dominant preference for British fishermen in the 12-to-50 mile limit. We stand by that. It is vital to have that dominant preference. Our position is on record. We want to secure a disproportionate share of the benefit of conservation measures in that limit. In addition, if we are successful, as we believe we shall be, in conserving the fish within the 50-mile limit, in future quotas we want to ensure that our industry gets the lion's share of the benefit.
We all accept what the Minister said about the importance of conservation. The hon. Gentleman referred to recent court decisions. I hope that there is no question of the conservation measures being lifted. The whole House regards them as justified on scientific grounds and in the interest of preserving stocks.
There is no doubt that the stand that we took on the Norway pout box has already helped stocks. The proposal in

that area is still inadequate, and I hope that the Government will insist on the right of member States to introduce nondiscriminatory conservation measures in advance of Community decisions. It is important that we should hold on to our right to introduce such conservation measures in British waters.
Of course, it is a question not only of conservation measures but of enforcement. The previous Labour Government were as responsible as are the present Government, but I worry whether we have the capability to enforce the sort of conservation measures that will be needed.
The bulk of the waters involved are British waters, and whatever conservation measures are agreed, whether they are British initiatives or Commission initiatives, Britain will be responsible for enforcing them. It has been suggested that there will be a committee of nationals from the member States to supervise the monitoring and implementation of conservation measures. I hope that the Minister of State will give us an indication of the Government's attitude to that suggestion. He will accept that there is no substitute for our having the capability to implement such measures in our waters.

Mr. Penhaligon: Does the hon. Gentleman think that Britain has achieved such conservation in the past? Many of those involved in mackerel fishing in the West Country believe that last year's regulations and catch limits were an abject and miserable farce. Over-catching totalled at least 50 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Strang: We have to accept that the measures were not successful in some areas, though that is not true of herring fishing. The industry, to its credit, accepted a ban and, while there may be a little restlessness, the overall judgment is that we must sustain the measures in order to allow stocks to increase. I accept that the application and enforcement of some of the measures relating to mackerel were not stringent. Part of the reason was the reaction to what had happened elsewhere. We know that measures are not being enforced by other member States in the way that we enforce them. An easier attitude was taken towards mackerel.
If we are to have effective conservation measures, enforced throughout the waters of the EEC, they must be operated fairly. Many sections of our industry have no respect for the way in which the measures are enforced by other Governments. The "World in Action" film demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there was a substantial flouting of the conservation measures and that officials who might have been able to contain it were turning a blind eye.
If we do not achieve acceptability of the way in which conservation measures are being enforced throughout the Community, the whole idea of a common fisheries policy will be doomed to failure.
The other area in which there are many important proposals concerns the plan for structural measures. The Minister of State was reluctant to say much about those measures, but I believe that we can obtain a substantial amount of new money for our industry through the application of some of those proposals, albeit after modification. By "new money" I do not mean that people should be paid to get out of the industry. I do not mean that money should be paid for laying up vessels. By "new money" I mean money to modernise and replace old vessels, so that they are more fitted to our modern industry.
The £14 million for temporary aid is simply to sustain the current catching capacity. None of that money should be paid to vessel owners who do not intend to put their vessels to sea. That money is a temporary package to sustain our present catching capacity, so that we have an industry to take advantage of what we hope will be a satisfactory settlement.
The money to be used for negative purposes or for helping people out of the industry is important. It is important in relation to Denmark and industrial fishing. Some parts of the industry are dependent upon that type of fishing, and there is a case for Community money being used to help it through the transitional period. If we are to succeed in the negotiations, the structural money must be used in Britain to modernise our fleet and to give us the capacity to catch fish efficiently in the future.
Important discussions are to take place in September and probably in October. They are vital to our industry. The £14

million is a demonstration of good faith by the Government. However, there is a long, hard way to go yet. The industry wants a settlement, because the future is so uncertain. It must not be a sell-out: it is too vital for that.
Of course, the budget issue is important. The Prime Minister, who was present for part of the debate, is right to attach the highest priority to the budget, but let us not forget that the fishing industry will be with us long after the budget issue has been forgotten. The fishing industry will be contributing to our national well-being long after the oil has run dry.
Potentially, fishing is a growth industry. It could make a great contribution to our economy. A satisfactory common fisheries policy is in its interests because much of the fish that we catch is outside British waters at some stage. If we can achieve effective conservation and management of the stocks in the North Sea and a fair deal for ourselves, we shall secure something which is worth while for the country. It will not be easy, but the Government will have the united support of the House of Commons if they insist on securing the type of deal that we have described many times in the House.

Sir Walter Clegg: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his announcement. The £14 million aid is to go to the most important part of the industry—the catch—because that is where the help is needed. I hope from what he has said, although he cannot give much detail, that it will be more effective aid than the last £3 million. Most of the aid must be directed to that part of the industry.
The Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must have had a hell of a fight with the Treasury to achieve the £14 million in the present circumstances. I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) for being fair and saying that the Government's offer of £14 million is a fair response to the request from the industry.
The Minister knows well the position in Fleetwood, where all our middle-water vessels are tied up. I hope that this aid will enable them to put back to sea and


to make the port viable again. We cannot judge that until we see how the allocation will be made. We shall then be able better to judge the matter.
I also thank my hon. Friend for steering us through this glutinous mass of EEC matter. It was a terrible prospect to collect it from the Vote Office. We were weighed down carrying it away. It made equally heavy reading. At times it was like reading "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark because the common fisheries policy was not there. All the structural parts of the documents are based on the fact that there is a common fisheries policy—but there is not. Structuring will play a part, and I hope that the restructuring will preserve the industry and not simply come in the form of payments to the industry to lay up vessels.
The one factor that I do not see mentioned in the documents is compensation for fishermen made redundant through no fault of their own. No matter what we say, some will be made redundant because of the loss of fishing opportunities and catch potential in Third world waters. In other industries such as steel and coal there have been considerable redundancy payments. Because of the way that British fishermen are paid, it appears that no provision will be made for them either by the Government or by the EEC. I hope that my hon. Friend, when he negotiates the structure, will bear that point in mind to ascertain whether anything can be done to help them. It is exceedingly difficult for those men to apply skills learnt at sea to jobs ashore.
I turn to the other factor raised by the Minister, namely, his intention to negotiate the common fisheries policy on the basis of the agreement reached between the House and the industry. We thank him for his assurance. I am sure that he will do his best to stick to that agreement in the negotiations. When he comes to deal with the question of a fair distribution of catches, I hope that he will place great emphasis on the loss of catch potential in Third world waters which has hit our fishing industry. We suffer from an inability to catch the right fish at the right time and at the right price. I am glad to see that that point is covered in the documents. I hope that

my hon. Friend will bear it well in the forefront of his mind during the negotiations.
Everybody in the House connected with the fishing industry is concerned about conservation and quotas. We are of one mind that policing must be effective. We saw many examples on the Granada programme of the way in which quotas can be broken down. We are right to press the Minister—as we and the Labour Party have done—to ensure that any schemes for quotas and conservation are policed. That will be the key to the effectiveness of the common fisheries policy once it is settled.
Many hon. Members wish to speak. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend once again for what he has said today. I hope that it means that Fleetwood will now receive some substantial help by which it can survive and grow again.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I do not intend to delay the House, so perhaps I may behave like a grasshopper, jumping from point to point, rather than spend 20 minutes agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) or picking holes sin the Minister's speech.
I welcome the decision to give money to the fishing industry. Although I should have liked more to be given, I thought that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) underplayed the point when he stressed the amount of money that had been obtained from the Treasury. I agree, and I congratulate the Minister on getting so much money for the industry. However, it would have been better to have more detail for our constituencies about the distribution of the money to the different sections of the fleet. I understand that the Ministry wants to discuss general matters with the industry, but giving details of percentages and of differences between England and Scotland—

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: And some for Northern Ireland.

Mr. McNamara: Indeed—and Northern Ireland, while its fleet is still there. Then we might have had some idea of what would happen in our areas.
Any schemes will emerge in August, September and October, when the House


is in recess, and there will be no opportunity to bring parliamentary pressure to bear to have matters examined more fully. I therefore regret that we are having this debate on the penultimate day before the recess, but even having it yesterday or the day before would not have allowed us much time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East was right to sound a note of caution about taking a truly drastic attitude towards the problems presented by imports. I understand that there are difficulties, but cheap imports are important for the consumer and as a source of employment for those working in processing in the factories. We must try to strike a balance between the two. We should not rush into an absolute ban but should be selective among countries, prices and species of fish. That would be better than blanket proposals in some areas.
Such places as Humberside and Fleetwood, which depended a great deal on third country fishing areas, will need considerably more compensation from any common fisheries policy than is being given to the inshore and middle water fleets. That compensation should take the form not only of restructuring and providing immediate employment for fishermen but of a more direct and positive regional policy, encouraging industries and giving benefits and inducements to industry to refurbish and invest in those areas.
In towns such as Hull there have been enormous cuts in the fishing fleets and job opportunities have been slashed, not only on vessels but in shipbuilding and processing, because of a lack of opportunities in third country waters. Such areas need not only restructuring of the fleet but a great injection of captal to rebuild the basis of their economy.
Whenever one asks representatives of the owners what they are doing, they say "We do not know. Until we see the shape of the policy and know what is happening, we cannot make investment or restructuring decisions." That is what makes a coherent package and a coherent plan of urgent importance.
Here I differ with the Minister. I do not share his joyful anticipation that at the end of the year, or early next year, we shall have a common policy. I do

not think that we shall be able to agree with the French, who will be engaged in presidential elections, with the Germans, during their elections, or with the Irish, during their possible elections. I do not believe that we shall achieve a coherent policy on our share and on the attitude and reaction of the countries involved. In those circumstances, every country will be fighting for its own corner.
What happens at the end of the year if we do not reach agreement? If we do not have a package, are we prepared, as I believe we should be, to take strong and positive unilateral action to achieve the objectives which are contained in the Opposition amendment?
I congratulate the Government—though I appear to be constantly carping—and thank them and Lord Bellwin for the encouragement they gave to the initiative of the trawler owners, the TGWU and the fish merchants of Hull in the establishment of a fish landing company in Hull. Hull city council was the catalyst in the efforts to establish and to maintain a viable fish landing facility there. It would be churlish of me not to have recognised Lord Bellwin's work. We would have liked far more. We would have liked a proper policy. But at least we have maintained that facility. We hope for the establishment of proper dock charges so that we may maintain them not only until the end of the year but into the foreseeable future.
However, I do not believe that the Government will succeed in obtaining a common fisheries policy. I do not believe that our colleaguese—if that is what they are—in the Community will allow us to achieve what we believe we are entitled to. For the important crumb of comfort that we have received fom the Government, however, I express my satisfaction.

Mr. Alex Pollock: I wish to add my warmest congratulations to the Government on bringing forward this much-needed package of aid for the industry. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), we are all too keenly aware how difficult it is to extract cash from the Treasury just now. It is a signal triumph for my hon. Friend the


Minister and his colleagues and, I am sure he would agree, for the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is, perhaps, in no small measure due to the continuing personal interest of the Prime Minister. It was a pleasure to see her present at the opening of this debate. Her attendance was in total contrast to the complete absence of the self-styled defenders of the Scottish fishing industry, the Scottish National Party. I trust that their absence has not gone unnoticed in Scotland.
I also emphasise the background of consultation preceding the Government's decision. It is vitally important that the industry should realise the great need at all times for an open-door policy between the leaders of the industry and the Government. At this critical time Europe would like nothing better than to see a divide between the Government and the industry. I am pleased at the way in which the Government have consistently taken the leaders of the industry with them in discussion and negotiation. I trust that they will long continue to do so.
The longer-term goals are more important. However, I do not intend to discuss the documents in any detail. I merely wish to highlight the three key objectives. The first is a realistic total allowable catch. The second is restricted access to United Kingdom waters. The third is a fair and just quota share for United Kingdom boats. Those, coupled with enforcement, must remain the key objectives for a successful policy.
The Government must show their good faith with their assistance to the industry on the terms requested earlier this year. They are continuing to show their determination to maintain a viable industry with tonight's announcement. With that record of good faith behind them since taking office, it behoves us all to wish the Government well in their future endeavours.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: A strange spirit of brevity has descended upon the House—not, in the context of this subject, to be confused with levity.
Why is it that our trawlers and our fishing fleets are being tied up and are rotting and rusting at the quayside when that is not happening to the trawlers and

the fishing fleets of the other member States of the European Community, or of Iceland or Norway? Every hon. Member, whether present in the Chamber for this debate or not, knows perfectly well what the reason is. It is that our membership of the European Economic Community has cost us the control of our own sovereign waters.
It is for that reason that we need compensation, as the hon. Member who represents the Fleetwood fishermen, the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg), was saying, for the third country waters in which we can no longer fish. We do not possess a bargaining counter. We have no power to make an understanding with third countries, as have those who are not shackled as we are.
Within the European Community we have no bargaining capacity. Under the Treaty by which we joined, the other countries could fish up to our beaches by waiting until 1982. But now they no longer have to wait until 1982; the crucial date is now the end of this year.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: No.

Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman denies that. I understand that the Government—no doubt in good faith—say that the date of the end of December is not linked with the other matters, that there is no package linking that date with the budget agreement of the spring. The question is not what we think. It is not whether we think that there is a package. The question is whether the other countries think that there is a package. They openly refer to one. The French do. All the reports that come from Brussels talk about a budget package, of which the fishery understanding about 31 December 1980 was a part.
If one is to sell a house, it is not specially advantageous to be told that it has to be sold by 31 December. That is not conducive to getting the terms that one wants. We shall be placed in the position of being told, if we fail to comply by the end of the year, that we are defaulting upon the spirit of the agreement of which this issue forms a part.
It is little wonder that our fishing industry is under pressure inside the Community. We have handed away our entire position. We have handed away the control of our waters. On top of that,


we have imposed upon ourselves undertakings that place the bargaining power in the hands of others. Those others have been referred to as our colleagues or partners. But they are not in this instance our colleagues or partners; they are our enemies. It is their intention to strip the United Kingdom. That is what it is all about, and that is what people should understand. That is why the terms were made for us when we joined the Community. That is why those terms were re-enforced in the context of the budget agreement. The object of the other countries is to put Britain out of fishing altogether, to take our place, to use our waters and our fisheries and to have our fleets off the seas. That is their object, and there is no point in being mealy-mouthed about it.
The Minister talked about the preparation of our fleets and our fishermen for new opportunities as a result of a common fisheries policy that is to be negotiated. If we have not those opportunities now, at whose expense are we going to gain them? Who is benefiting at the moment from our restrictions? Who is gaining by our losses? Does the Minister imagine that those advantages, enjoyed by the other countries today, will be given up in order to arrive at a common fisheries policy? It is the most absurd innocence.
It is all very well for the Government to put down a motion of platitudinous aspirations. The word "aspiration" was used by the Minister in his speech. It is all very well for the Opposition to spell out more precisely the conditions that they would like to see. Both Front Benches and both sides in the argument know perfectly well that we have no power to obtain these conditions. We are at the receiving end. We have taken down our trousers and given the rod to others.
How did we come to be where we are? How did we come to wreck our own fishing industry? How did we come to betray our own national interests? It was part of a larger betrayal. It was part of the supreme betrayal of handing away this country's sovereignty and the sovereignty of this House to an external body. If that is not betrayal, there is no meaning to the word "betrayal".
On both sides of the House, those whose names are attached to the motion

and to the amendment have put party before country. The Conservative Party put party before country in the 1970 Parliament. The Labour Party, by its pretence that this could be an open question, put party before country in the 1974 Parliament. Party before country has resulted in the betrayal of Britain. The fishermen of Britain are among the first, but they will not be among the last, to feel the consequences of having surrendered our own independence and our right to control that which is ours.
This is the biggest of all questions. It is not a question of 12 to 50 miles of preferential access, or whether it is to be 35 per cent. or 45 per cent. The rest of the nations of the Common Market care nothing for these things. Whatever agreements they enter into, they have no need, no necessity and no requirement to keep them. We can hear them saying that they do not intend to keep them. Have we not yet learnt, from our experiences in other fields, what reliance is to be placed upon arrangements and agreements made with the Common Market? We have no opportunity to protest or to get our own back, for we have surrendered the power to do so.
We are beginning to taste on the seas, the very home of Britain, the bitter fruit of subordination, the bitter fruit of the betrayal of which both parties in the House have been guilty. The fishermen and those who will suffer, their families, and the fishing ports and fishing areas should understand the cause. It is not the fault of any external authority. It is not the difficulty of arriving at a common fisheries policy. It is the fact that the fishermen have been betrayed, and are now contemplating the consequences. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. Iain Sproat: I hope to continue the practice of brevity that has been adopted so far in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) began by saying how glad hon. Members were to see the Prime Minister on the Front Bench at the beginning of the debate. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the success of my hon. Friend the Minister of State and his right hon. Friends in securing aid for the industry owes much to the knowledge of the industry that my right hon.


Friend the Prime Minister learnt in the North-East of Scotland shortly before the last general election.
My hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn, with characteristic courtesy, played down the other side of the coin, which, contrary to the presence of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, was the absence of the Scottish National Party. This may seem a small matter and perhaps hardly worthy of notice, but on the Benches beside me are hon. Members who defeated members of the Scottish National Party at the general election—members who had previously based almost their entire campaign in Scotland on the vicissitudes of the fishing industry. Yet, when the subject comes to be debated in the House of Commons where something really has been done, thanks to my hon. Friend, where are they? The} are not here. I hope that the voters in Moray and Nairn, Banff and Fife, East will notice the SNP's absence and draw the correct conclusions from it.
I said that I wanted to follow the practice of brevity, so I shall. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for two announcements which will bring great pleasure to Aberdeen. The first, to which I shall return, was the announcement of £14 million of aid. The other issue, which perhaps will not have been so widely noticed in the House, was what he said about the Hall Russell shipyard and the confirmation of the order for two off shore patrol vessels worth £13 million. I congratulate him on managing to get that order confirmed.
If I enter a note of criticism, it is not criticism of my hon. Friend. But there is a note of criticism that it has taken so many weeks after an order was promised to Hall Russell to get it confirmed. During these past many weeks, there has been deep concern in Aberdeen that, the building of the vessels having been begun, they would not be paid for. Hall Russell has been losing £15,000 a week in interest, because somewhere within the mechanics of Whitehall confirmation of the order could not come through. I know that my hon. Friend was foremost in getting the order through. He was one of the heroes of the piece. But I hope that he will look at the machinery which could have allowed this matter to

go on for so long and ensure that such a delay with substantial financial consequences does not happen again.
The second matter for which I give my hon. Friend thanks and congratulations is the £14 million aid. I am glad that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) welcomed it in such a generous manner. I thought that was exactly the note that he should have struck. It demonstrates how in this House, perhaps somewhat precariously and contrary to the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), we still manage to keep substantial areas of agreement on the fishing industry.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is the trouble.

Mr. Sproat: The right hon. Gentleman says "That is the trouble." How wrong he is. If we are to succeed in these renegotiations, it will be precisely because we have the support of a 90 per cent. united House of Commons.
I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends on easing the Common Market down the road of realism. We have not got there yet, as we have seen from the documents before us, but they have certainly gone much further down the road towards realism and justice than they have been before. For that, we should pay some tribute to the negotiating skills of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
Recently there have been reports in the press that the Government were not properly in touch with the fishing industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) wrote a splendid letter to The Scotsman pointing out what rubbish that was. He said it then. Now he has the proof. The fishing industry may want more. It wanted £35 million and it got almost £15 million. None the less, whatever else can be said, it cannot be said that the Government were not in close touch with all sections of the fishing industry. I can think of many other industries which would be grateful for half the contact with Ministers which the fishing industry enjoys.
I suspect that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) will ask why the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South welcomes this aid when he does not believe in giving aid to industries that


are down on their luck. Perhaps I can pre-empt that by saying that a substantial difference must be drawn between industries which have problems of their own making, such as British Leyland, and those which have problems that are not of their own making, such as the fishing industry. We have already heard that the problems of the fishing industry arose because of the loss of the Icelandic fishing grounds and because of the complexities of the common fisheries policy. Those problems are not the fault of the industry. They were created by Governments, and rightly, it behoves Governments to try to solve them. That is why I pressed for aid for the industry and why I welcome, without restraint, the aid that is to be given.
However, this aid is only a stopgap measure to keep the industry ticking over until the common fisheries policy can be renegotiated. Most hon. Members who are present have made many speeches in the House during the last year on the subject. There is no point in going over all the old ground again—the need for access, the need for proper quotas, the fact that 65 per cent. of the fish in the collective waters of the EEC is caught in British waters and the fact that we shall not be content with 25 per cent. of the catch.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State rightly said that the quota suggestions from our Common Market partners were illustrative. Indeed they were. But I hope that they were not illustrative of the genuine thinking of our partners. I hope that they will be under no illusion after this debate or after meetings with my hon. Friend. There is no way that the British fishing industry could accept the pathetic quotas, whether in global or species terms, that it has so far been offered. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East was right in saying that 45 per cent. was a realistic but rather low estimate by the fishing industry and a generous negotiating percentage.
I am grateful, as the industry will be, for what my hon. Friend has announced today, but the fishing industry does not want to live on subsidies. It wants my right hon. and hon. Friends to renegotiate a common fisheries policy with a framework within which the industry can thrive and prosper without subsidies.

Mr. James Johnson: Perhaps I might intervene in this Aberdeen imbroglio and say that I found the Minister of State as courteous as ever and that he gave us an informative, comprehensive survey, but what did he actually say? He told us that the Government were giving the industry a cash boost of £14 million to £15 million. I must not be churlish, because this is the second injection to the industry this year. The Minister emphasised that and added that another £23 million had been injected into other sections of the industry. Some people think that that aid is miraculous, but I do not.
In a way, this money is a boost in a rapidly deteriorating situation. It is a stopgap measure that will give hope—I hope, more than faint hope—to many thousands of fishermen. How the moneys are shared out between vessel owners is a technical point about which, no doubt, we shall hear later. I do not know what the fishing leaders will say. For months we have had a pilgrimage on their part to Westminster Hall. They have not come to a Klondike. More often than not, it has been a pilgrimage to Canossa for some of them. It was shocking for people such as myself and many of my colleagues to see really hard men who had fought in the war and gone to sea against Hitler and others becoming so demoralised by their situation, financial and otherwise. I am glad that these men have got something that they deserve. They deserved a jolly sight better than what they were getting previously— £2 million here and £1 million there.
The hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) has left the Chamber. Let us look at what he called this glutinous mass of documents. I have studied them carefully. I am antagonised by the verbal humbug. They are full of wonderful intentions and aspirations. Let us look at article 2, on page 13, of document 8958/80, which has been mentioned by the Minister, which talks about joint ventures between firms or people in these sister States.
I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I shall not go as far as he went, but I ask, as he does: where is the political will to have these joint ventures and to


have what he might term a share-out and a fair deal? What do these pious phrases and saccharine sentences mean for a place such as Hull?
I saw the film on BBC television which was mentioned by the hon. Member for North Fylde. One of our best Hull skippers went over to Boulogne. It was quite scandalous. He asked questions such as "Where was this herring caught?" and "How much is being unloaded?"—or loaded, as the case may be. He questioned what we would term a local harbour commissioner, and he got nothing whatever out of him. The people there smiled or nodded. This sort of behaviour almost makes me think that detente, just as between the East and the West blocs, is almost impossible inside the Council of Ministers. The malaise is exemplified by articles in Fishing News about this.
However, I come back to the draft legislation—document No. 8958/80. In his explanatory memorandum, the Minister says "No account is taken" and so forth.
When no account is taken of these conditions in doing business with third nations, of course this is vital to Hull. We have lost all our distant fishing banks—Iceland, Norway, the White Sea, the Barents Sea, Greenland, Labrador and God knows where else. We want what the paper says—a fair distribution of catches. We want attention paid—again, as the paper says in these saccharine sentences—to the special needs of local populations, particularly those
dependent upon fishing and allied occupations.
I come to the matter of the loss of catch potential in third country waters. The Minister used the most illuminating phrase when he said that these were "illustrative figures". Dear me! It goes down to 42,000 tonnes and 105 points of a ton. How on eath these tables are supposed to illustrate the case, I do not know. I would much sooner go on to a percentage of quotas.
There were leaks during the talks in June. When we returned to this Chamber there was talk of 31 or 32 per cent. of pelagic catches coming to us and about 38 per cent. of demersal fish—vital to Hull—cod, haddock, hake, halibut and so on. Later estimates put our share at

40 or 45 per cent. I do not understand that. All hon. Members know that, according to our scientific experts, 65 per cent. of the stocks are in what most of us would accept to be our territorial waters.
The philosophy of sharing out the stocks is not in the minds of our Gallic cousins. They have a wonderful word, communautaire. A classic example can be vouched for by Hull skippers fishing in Arctic waters. The French have never fished north of 62 degrees latitude. If discussions take place in Luxembourg, Strasbourg or Brussels, the French say that they want a share of the catch of demersal fish. Those fish are caught in the Arctic, well north of 62 degrees latitude.
The table on the size of deep-water fleets is fascinating. I am amazed that the United Kingdom is still listed on paper as having the largest deep-water fleet. The statistics seem to be a bit behind the times. The position is fast changing. With national subsidies, the Cuxhaven fleet is making additions to its deep-water distant fleet. So are the Danes and the Dutch. Where are we making such additions?
I understand that £14 million or £15 million of aid is involved. It is better late than never. Is it too late? Austen Laing is the most informed fishing diplomat in Western Europe. He advises the British Fishing Federation. He wonders whether the policy is too late. The Minister listens to such men, and so do I.
I wonder whether Mr. Laing's remarks to the Committee in the other place hold water with the Minister and his advisers. He said that the major ports—I should include Fleetwood as well as Hull—could go out of business if things continued as they were. He pointed out that if he had said that 10 years ago in the bar of the Star and Garter pub in Hessle Road, Hull he would have been looked upon by skippers as a madman,
In less than a decade, we have gone from the bad position of 137 vessels down to our present position of 28. Most of them are rusting in the docks of Hull. Our partners are building fleets in anticipation of the 1980s, but our fleets are withering away. Why does the Minister, who is courteous and who has the interests of the industry at heart, tolerate


that? Why does the Cabinet committee, or the sub-committee, allow that to continue? With the exception of constituencies in the Hull area, and perhaps one in Aberdeen, all the fishing constituencies elect Conservative Members. The Government should do more. I do not understand why they have continued to allow such fantastically low import prices on fish from third countries.
The result of those imports is that although vessels go to sea, they lose money. They are not inefficient, but the fish that they catch earns a low price in the home harbour. I listen—as I hope we all do—to experienced political observers in this House, on television, in the unions and in newspapers. They go to Brussels with the Minister and his team. I am told by these men that the chances of agreement in the CFP negotiations depend basically on the accord between two nations—ourselves and the French. I am told that when our Minister is negotiating there he talks about "all my farmers". Let us fervently hope that in the future—and not before long—he will talk about "all my fishermen".
The Prime Minister deserves a compliment for coming to the Chamber and listening to the debate. I hope that what she hears will have some effect on the way in which she influences her Ministers. I think that it does. The Minister of State knows, and the industry knows, that the Government have the complete and unfaltering support of all sections of the House. It is up to them to bring home the bacon for our fishermen in October.

Mr. David Myles: I very much welcome the chance to speak in this debate and I shall attempt to be brief, although there are a few points that I wish to make.
I welcome the bipartisan approach that the Labour Party has made to this issue. I wonder whether there is a tripartisan or quintupartisan approach as well. There is certainly not a quintupartisan approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, the Scottish National Party is not represented in the debate tonight. That shocks me, because in the North-East of Scotland the SNP claims to speak for the fishing industry. In the Banff-Buchan district council the

SNP representatives have demanded that they should take over from the Grampian regional council fisheries committee, which consists of people such as Gilbert Buchan and Willy Hay. The five SNP councillors on the Banff-Buchan district council say that they know far more about the fishing industry than the real leaders of that industry. Therefore, I am rather sad that there are no SNP Members present in the House tonight.

Mr. Barry Henderson: Is it not true that the Scottish nationalists have been users and abusers of the industry rather than spokesman for it?

Mr. Myles: My hon. Friend has said it. I need do no more than agree with him.
I wish to repeat something that I have said before in the House, and I make no apology for doing so. What our fishermen need are the "seven Cs". I may change some of those Cs slightly in view of the Minister's statement tonight, but I still think that we in the industry need those seven Cs. I use the word "we" advisedly, because I feel that I am part of the fishing industry, representing Banff as I do.
First, we need cash. We had a demonstration from the Government tonight that cash was forthcoming and I welcome that generous gesture. I also pay tribute to the Labour Opposition for being so generous in their welcome of that cash injection.
However, the aid must be used wisely. Here I slightly disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who said that the fishing industry was not responsible for the position in which it finds itself. I am not sycophantic to the fishing industry all the time. When my hon. Friend the Minister allocates the cash, I urge him not to spread it around or give it to the industry to use as it considers fit. No one is perfect all the time.
The fishermen in Buckie and the surrounding area are independent men. They are desperately trying to set up a new PO to organise themselves. Will the Government recognise urgently that that is a useful addition to fishing representation? It would greatly help in the distribution and use of the cash.
The second "C" is catch. My hon. Friend explained the Community's suggestions on quotas. I do not disagree with the Opposition amendment. However, I have done a lot of horse trading. The party that jumps in with figures too soon nearly always loses the argument. It would be a slight mistake to be as specific as the Opposition suggest.
The third "C" is conservation. Draft instrument R/8957/80 states that the modified proposals are an improvement on previous drafts, but problems still exist as far as the pout box is concerned. The fishermen to whom I have talked are concerned that the pout box will have to be cut because of a European Court decision. I urge my hon. Friend to consider the intricacies of the law to see how it can be bent in our favour on this occasion.
A further point on conservation concerns by-catches. By allowing them we are opening the door to abuse. Great care should be taken in allowing by-catches.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Was that not revealed in the staggering film by Granada, which has been taken to Brussels to try to convince the Commission what is happening?

Mr. Myles: My hon. Friend is right.
I come now to the catchers of nephrops, or prawns. That section needs to be considered. I am grateful to my noble Friend, who was wise enough to interpret the rules to allow prawn catchers to use a lifter, a chafer or a topside chafer. I appreciate that many hon. Members will not know what I am talking about, but I hope that fishermen do.
The fourth "C" is co-operation. Fish do not see the meridian line or a 12, 50 or 200-mile limit. They swim across it and are liable to be caught by whoever is on the other side. We need co-operation from our EEC partners. I say "partners" advisedly. We cannot wish them away. If they are our enemies, we should try to persuade them to be our friends. It would be a lot easier for us to live with them as friends than to brand them as enemies and keep them at arm's length.
We must also consider co-operation with third countries. The strength of the EEC in that regard is to be commended.

We were able to get the Iron Curtain catching power out of the North Sea because of the strength of the EEC. I welcome that.
We also need to co-operate with ourselves. There is here a slight suspicion of criticism of the fishing industry. It must stick together and must not divide and allow itself to be conquered. That could be another "C".
The next "C" is control. I welcome the agreement on catch reporting. As the World in Action "film pointed out, it is important to have a proper catch reporting system. The only way to control fishing its by coastal State control of the waters. That can and ought to be done. I do not believe that control by committee is much good.
Another "C" is construction, or what is often called restructuring. We must continue to try to restructure and to use agreements within the EEC to get sensible restructuring and we must also keep our boatyards constructing—building fishing boats, whether by scrap and build or otherwise. We must keep our fleet modernised.
We welcome the FEOGA grants. I make a plea for the simplification of the grants and for their allocation in a way that can be seen to be fair, instead of the dog-in-the-manger way in which they appear to be allocated, when no one quite understands how the grants are allocated.
The final "C" is the most important. The debate has done some good in terms of confidence. We shall not have a fishing industry unless we have confidence. I hope that the industry will realise that there are vicious forces somewhere—I do not know who pulls the strings—trying to split the industry and to destroy it from within.
The erroneous statements that have appeared in The Scotsman in the last couple of weeks have done nothing to help the fishing industry. I am all for freedom of the press, but I ask that the freedom be exercised responsibly. Let the press realise what it is doing in its short-term sensationalism. I plead with the press to be responsible and to understand that all Governments will support the fishing industry. The industry will not be sold down the river.

Mr. David Penhaligon: I have learnt two things in the debate: first, that the Government have found a useful sum for the fishing industry for which there seems to be a general welcome—I concur with that general welcome—and, secondly, that it is clear that the Scottish National Party is far from dead. There is a possibility that I shall have some Celtic friends on this side of the House before long.
The Minister will not be desperately surprised to hear my views.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I am sorry to learn that the Liberal Party is on such cordial terms with members of the Scottish National Party. Will the hon. Gentleman say more about that?

Mr. Penhaligon: The one thing to be said for the SNP is that its members have the good sense to sit on this side of the House. The hon. Members who replace them do not, and we might have been marginally better off if they did.
We must recognise the real progress that has been made in the negotiations. At long last, a system has been started in Europe under which catches are reported and monitored. I am not desperately enthusiastic about how far that system has gone. The relevant document is full of what should be done, but it is weak on how the system will be enforced. I am cynical because of what has happened in my part of the country in relation to catch reports in the last four or five years.
The simplest form of fishing to report must be the transhipment of fish from a large number of trawlers to a small number of klondikers or factory ships. However, we cannot succeed even in monitoring that accurately. There could be nothing simpler. The transhipment happens in one harbour. If one goes to Falmouth or Flushing in the autumn, or later at Christmas, one can see 25 or 30 large factory boats from many countries anchored there. They take supplies from British fishing fleets. Our record of monitoring that process is appalling, if the reports that I hear are accurate.
The White Fish Authority's last report indicated that Britain succeeded in ex-

porting twice as much mackerel as it caught. That is a productivity record held by few industries. That document is six months old, but I have yet to see a detailed explanation of an honest mistake which would contradict that ludicrous situation. Enforcing any agreement will be an enormous problem, since it cannot be managed even in Falmouth harbour.
Why has the Minister rejected the idea of a single boat to which all the trawlers have to report before they are allowed to tranship their fish to the klondikers? That is the easiest way to monitor the position. Fish cannot be transhipped to the klondikers—the factory boats—until skilled people with an eye for estimating the weight of the fish—it is all done by estimation—can apply that skill and produce a genuine and reasoned estimate. That is the minimum that is required to ensure satisfactory monitoring in that single, isolated harbour. I do not know how the Minister hopes to monitor the position throughout Europe. I am pleased that he has that job rather than I.
I am against the whole transhipment business. Britain's fishing industry is in trouble because of overfishing by super sophisticated boats for many years. It is a ludicrous farce that the one fish that breeds in large quantities in our waters is being sold to boats from the Soviet Union and East Germany. It is especially ludicrous in the light of the present political position. We are selling the fish for 4p a pound. That is the going price for what we, in my area, call Cornish mackerel but which, for the benefit of the House. I shall call British mackerel. The Government allow the Soviet bloc invasion—indeed, they encourage it—each year in our territorial waters. I see no logic in that, even in normal circumstances.
The Government begged athletes who had spent a lifetime training for the Olympics not to fulfil that brief climax of their careers, yet that self-same Government allow the invasion of our terriorial waters by enormous Soviet factory boats which have to be beholden to be believed. Looking out from Falmouth or Flushing, one sees an endless array of boats from one harbour to the other. I do not understand it, because it is not logical.
The Government should face the reality of what they are doing and run tremendous campaigns to make mackerel more popular. It is a standard Cornish joke that the English will not eat mackerel, and it is true. Other than the smoking industry which has been developed in Scotland, the consumption of mackerel in Britain compares not one iota with the total amount caught.
I repeat my protest once again. I cannot understand why the Government are allowing the one industry that we have to be stripped by the Soviet invasion that will take place again this year. The going price is only 4p a pound. Many people in my area will see the £14 million that the Government are providing as a subsidy to British trawlers to catch mackerel to give to the Russians at 4p a pound. That is an incredible position. I hope that the Government realise their folly before it is too late and we are left without any mackerel.

Mr. Barry Henderson: I shall be brief. If the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) will forgive me, in the interests of maintaining the maximum possible degree of agreement within the House I shall refrain from following precisely his remarks.
It is fair to say that a broad measure of agreement has been reached in the House, with the exception of one right honourable fly in the ointment. I refer to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). While I fully acknowledge his far greater eloquence and learning, I prefer to take the sensible and practical advice of the fishermen in my constituency to that which he gave the House this evening.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: They are against the Common Market, too, are they not?

Mr. Henderson: They are not, I am happy to assure the right hon. Gentleman. Some are, but it is a free country.
I welcome the Minister's brief reaffirmation of the Government's policy objectives for fishing. He has amply demonstrated his understanding of the facts of life in fishing and the Government's commitment, supported this afternoon by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, to get a settlement acceptable to the industry as a whole.
I was encouraged by the Government's intention, which my hon. Friend the Minister reaffirmed, to maintain the closest relations with the leaders of the industry. I have in mind the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and comparable organisations south of the border.
The Government should retain that close contact. The leaders of those organisations have shown themselves responsible, well informed and, not least important, closely in contact with those they represent, so that when they come to an understanding with the Government they can deliver. It is of cardinal importance that the industry's leaders have the respect of the Government, since they are seen truly to represent the industry.
Can the Minister give a little more information about the additional sums that he is making available? I believe that there will be a 60 per cent. increase in the amount available during this fiscal year. How much of that will be on his own Ministry's budget and how much on the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, for example?
I appreciate that the Minister is now discussing with the industry the way in which that aid will be used, although it is seen principally as help for the owners of vessels. Does he have in mind the further use of the producers' organisations in assisting in the use of the resources to the greatest possible benefit? Does he see those organisations having a continuing function in the support and management of the market place itself?
I know that there have been some difficulties in the way in which the producers' organisations have used the money provided by the Government, but in my area the system with the limited amount of money which the Government had made available through the producers' organisations had a worthwhile effect in the local market place.
Talking of the market place, I was a little disturbed when an hon. Member said something like "It will keep us ticking over until we get the CFP."

Sir William Clark: That is not good enough.

Mr. Henderson: My hon. Friend is quite right: it is not good enough, partly


because I want the industry to do better than tick over and partly because I do not believe that the CFP will be the answer to all our problems. We shall have problems to solve for fishing in this country itself, quite apart from the CFP.
In the long term, the most serious development for the fishing industry in the last decade or so has been the fact that we eat less fish. That is to the disadvantage of the people, but we do eat less and as long as we do there will be a problem for the industry.
Marketing and persuading people of the benefits of fish in their diet, both as a delicacy and for their health, are very important. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do what he can to encourage the industry to have greater regard to the importance of marketing

Mr. Robert Hughes: I had not intended to refer to the longstanding disagreement between the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) and myself on the principle of State industry. Though he has temporarily left the Chamber, it is necessary—since he trailed his coat, as he put it—to make one or two remarks on the subject.
I understand that constituency circumstances alter cases and that the general principle of being opposed to State aid is very much watered down in relation to one's own constituency. That is certainly true of Conservative Members. They have made much play this evening of the Prime Minister's interest in and presence at this debate. That may be because, three days before the last election, six Conservative candidates sent a panic telegram because they thought that they were about to lose their seats. The telegram called for the Conservative Party to propose a proper fisheries policy.
I do not object to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South trimming his coat—I see that he has now returned to the Chamber—to suit the circumstances. However, I object to the fact that, when we are speaking of aid to other industries, the industries seeking State aid are referred to in a grossly offensive manner. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South did not use this particular phrase, but yesterday a Conservative Member at Question Time referred to people rattling

begging bowls in front of the Government.
If we wish to be consistent, we must recognise that the fishing industry could be said to be rattling a begging bowl in front of the Government. But the industry that rattles its begging bowl most often, and with the greatest success, is the agriculture industry.
In that context, I now turn to the matter of aid to the fishing industry. That aid must be judged not just on its own terms but in terms of what the Government do for other industries. It must be judged particularly in relation to agriculture, where £15 million would be regarded as a small sum indeed.
Conservative Members have been almost overcome by euphoria at the granting of £15 million to the fishing industry. I do not blame them, given the record of their Government in cutting public expenditure. They are grateful to be able to go back to their constituencies this weekend and speak of £15 million in aid.
I say that £15 million is inadequate. It is inadequate in relation to what the industry sought. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) spoke of the £15 million in relation to the £35 million asked for by the industry. He and I, perhaps, have slightly misinterpreted what the industry asked for. We should make it clear that—as I understand the position from papers I have received from the industry—the industry was asking for £35 million for Scotland over the year. The industry was saying that the shortfall—what the industry needed in terms of costs and interest—was £70 million. Therefore, we are talking about £15 million as part of a total of £70 million, not as part of a total of £35 million.
The announcement of £15 million worth of aid is not news. The aid was widely forecast in the press. In The Press and Journal yesterday some of the fishermen's leaders commented on the sum of £15 million.

Mr. Henderson: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hughes: It is no use the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Henderson) shaking his head.

Mr. Henderson: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. I was somewhat disturbed that he had spent a fair amount of time casting aspersions at some of my


right hon. and hon. Friends. I was hoping that, with his knowledge of the industry, he would address himself to the documents that we are discussing.

Mr. Hughes: That is more than the hon. Gentleman did when he spoke, but I shall come to the documents in due time. Mr. Roddy McColl, assistant secretary of the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, said yesterday that the sum of £15 million was significant. I accept that. He said that it was significant if it was meant as a help until the year's end. Mr. Ian McSween, deputy chief executive of the Scottish Fishermen's Organisation, said that the cash infusion would be the minimum needed to see the industry through to about the end of the year. I give this quotation:
Chairman of the Aberdeen Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, Mr. David Craig, said: 'We do welcome financial assistance. Whether it is sufficient to keep the fleet going until the end of the year I am not sure. It is a question of how it is going to be allocated'.
It can be fairly said that that is a muted response from the fishing industry.
We are entitled to ask the Government how long the money is intended to last. As I understand it, the Minister said that the money is to last until the end of the financial year. Whose financial year is the hon. Gentleman—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Financial Assistance to Opposition Parties may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Orders of the Day — COMMON FISHERIES POLICY

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Hughes: Is it to be the industry's financial year? It is plain from all the documents that the industry is referring to the end of the calendar year. All the assessments of vessel figures are based on the calendar year. Is it the industry's financial year or is it the Government's financial year? There is a difference of almost three months. That is significant

in terms of what the industry has to face in future. I hope that that issue will be resolved.
There has been some concern about the way in which the previous few million pounds of aid was distributed. I know that the Minister has said that he is changing the allocation scheme. I hope that he will do something to ensure that the aid that goes into the industry is reflected in prices in the shops. The hon. Member for Fife, East says that the consumption of fish is decreasing. That is hardly surprising when we consider how the price of fish on the fishmonger's slab is increasing.
In our fishing debates, we often concentrate on the industry and leave out of the equation the most important factor, namely, the consumer. If the consumer's rating is £15 million, £18 million, £30 million or whatever figure the Government claim and the price of fish is increasing in the shops, the public are bound to ask why.
Those who are acquainted with the industry know that market prices have to be considered carefully. However, the public read in the press of boxes of haddock being sold at £2 a box in the fish market. That has been the catalyst for a great furore in the fishing ports. At the same time, the price of haddock at the fishmonger's is over £1 a pound and cod is £1·75 a pound. The public are bound to ask "What is happening?" I hope that the Government will do something to ensure that the money that they put into the industry is used in part to keep prices down.

Mr. Myles: Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the money that goes into the industry should go to the housewife and not to the industry?

Mr. Hughes: Not in whole. I am suggesting that the money that is going into the industry should be reflected in keeping prices down in the shops, if not reducing them. I am not suggesting that all the money should be used for that purpose. Unless we increase the consumption of fish, there is no point in keeping the industry alive.
I welcome the Minister's confirmation of the order to Hall Russell and Co. for two offshore patrol vessels. It is not a


new order. It is not an order for two additional vessels. These are the vessels for which the Ministry of Defence issued a letter of intent to Hall Russell and Co. in February. As I understand it, the order is now signed, sealed and delivered. It has been signed on the dotted line. The Minister will know, because I have been telephoning his office almost every day since the beginning of July, that there has been unhappiness about the delay in confirming the order.
I was alarmed to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South refer to the Minister as the hero of the hour who had battled to get that order. I had always understood, throughout the last four or five weeks, that there was no doubt about the order being placed and that the issue was one of accounting difficulty among the four Departments about who would pay for the two vessels. I hope that the hon. Gentleman was slightly overdrawing events and was not suggesting that the signing of the order was in doubt. If there were doubt, the situation would be much more serious.
The placing of the order, while important for Hall Russell and for our fisheries protection fleet, is not enough to ensure a proper fishery protection fleet for conservation, protection and the policing of quotas. I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the Government are considering placing further orders. I make the constituency point that I should like such orders to go to Hall Russell. Wherever they are placed, in the interests of our fishing industry we should have a much bigger fishery protection fleet.
It is not simply yards such as Hall Russell that depend on the fishing industry. Hon. Members from fishing ports around Scotland and England will know that many small boat builders face serious trouble. Some face redundancies and there is fear that a number may have to close because orders have all but dried up. This has happened, I understand, to the extent that £2 million of White Fish Authority money will not be spent this year. I hope that such rumours are untrue.
I hope that the extent to which boat builders depend on the confidence of those who go to sea is recognised. If reconstruction funds are channelled into boat

building from the EEC or elsewhere, I hope that owners, who have been arguing, rightly, that there should be import controls against cheap fish, will take the point that when they receive British aid to build vessels they should not simply duck across the Channel and elsewhere to place orders in foreign yards. This has happened far too much. I hope that owners will realise their responsibility to the boat-building industry in this country.
The aid given to owners by Continental Governments to purchase vessels is conditional on those orders being placed in domestic yards. We have always had the answer that we are bound by the Treaty of Rome and previously by EFTA rules that free competition had to arise and that people should be allowed to place orders anywhere. It happens nowhere else except in this country that people are allowed to take Government money and spend it outside the country. Apart from any action the Government take, the fishing industry should feel a sense of responsibility.
I wish to refer to the EEC generally. I disagree with the Minister, who gave a fairly rosy picture of how matters had developed since he became Minister. The hon. Gentleman suggested that in the period in which the Government had been taking part in negotiations there had been significant moves towards the British point of view. That idea is entirely misplaced. It seems that the Government have learnt nothing since the days when they were first elected—the heady days of optimism when they started negotiations. At that time, their message was that it would be "full speed ahead" towards agreement on a common fisheries policy. Apparently, the days of obstruction by my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), the days of disagreement in the Community because some Labour Members were antagonistic to the EEC and had no enthusiasm for it, had passed. The reason, we were told, why there had not been progress towards a new common fisheries policy was the lack of flexibility and the intransigence of those carrying out the negotiations.
We have had 15 or 16 months of the new flexible approach of the commitment to the European Community. That was supposed to remove the difficulties in our way. The reality is very different from


what we were promised. It is also different from what the Minister said tonight. Far from its being full speed ahead towards a fisheries agreement, the anchors are still firmly embedded in the sea bed. We have made no progress at all.
Whether the Government like it or not, they are boxed in in their negotiations. The negotiations are linked with the budget issue, which they claim to have settled. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in a rare moment when we happened to agree, was right when he said that it is not so much what is said in the House at the Dispatch Box that counts as what is said by and emanates from other EEC Governments. They have made it clear that if we do not reach a fisheries agreement satisfactory to their fishermen—not to our fishermen—we shall not get the budget rebate which we are due to get on 1 January next year. We are hemmed in. I do not know why the Government allowed themselves to be conned into the 1 January 1981 date.
The indicative or illustrative quotas, or whatever is the current euphemism to be applied to them, are an insult to this country. As I interjected earlier, we have for four to five years been trying to negotiate a new common fisheries policy. Yet the result of the great progress that we have made is indicative or illustrative quotas. It is a sad position in which to find ourselves.
I hope that the Government will stand firm in their resolve. I doubt whether they will be able to do so. The issue has gone so far and they have got so boxed in that they will not be able to reach an agreement. I hope that they will, but I doubt it. As an earnest of the Government's intention to reach an agreement, I hope that the Minister will announce that he accepts our amendment. Some hon. Members think that the amendment is inadequate. Nevertheless, it encapsulates our negotiating position. Failure to accept our amendment will mean that the divide in the so-called bipartisan policy is widening.
When we have asked the Government to stand firm, they have said that they will stand firm. When we have asked them to say what will happen if we drift on as we have done—on the question of negotiations, one could almost open Hansard

at 13 April, col. so and so, repeat it and sit down, because we have been over it so many times—we have been told that we must wait and see when that happens because we cannot declare our negotiating hand. That excuse is wearing thin, because the issue facing the fishing industry is very serious.
The Government must now say that if there is no agreement in October satisfactory to our fishing industry it will be a question not of discussing the rebate, which we might or might not get in January, but of saying that we shall not pay one penny of our money into EEC funds until we get an agreement satisfactory to our fishing industry.

Mr. John Home Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) has been a powerful advocate for the fishing industry for many years. The one thing shown by the debate is that the east coast of Scotland's fishing communities are not short of powerful advocates. Eight Members on both sides of the House representing Scottish east coast constituencies have taken part in the debate. I think that it is right that hon. Members on both sides of the House should be united in their concern about the future of this important industry.
Like other hon. Members, I welcome the strong stand that has been taken by the Minister of State on quotas, conservation, protection, and so on. The nation and the House are united on those issues. I also welcome the fact that the Government are to give financial assistance to the industry. The sum of £14 million is a convenient compromise—judging from press reports—and we must recognise that it must have been difficult for the Minister to extract that sort of sum from the Treasury under present stances. It is a joy to share the pleasure of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr Sproat) on one of these happy occasions when he can revel in public expenditure for his constituency, which he would be only too willing to deny to people in other parts of the country.
The Minister of State could have been more forthcoming about how the money will be distributed. In terms of the need, there is not very much money. I hope that he will say how much will be spent in


Scotland as compared with other parts of the country and how much will go to the inshore fleet as compared with other parts of the fishing fleet. He could have said more, and he will have to say more.
I should like to make one minor constituency point. I wonder how much is left of that part of the previous sum of £3 millon that was set aside for experimental projects for the industry. Is there anything left in that kitty which might be used to help fishermen in my constituency who operate small boats and who are hoping to develop ways and means of supplementing the loss that they are making in fishing for crabs and lobsters by developing a new method of fishing for clams? Perhaps the Minister could write to me about that in due course.
I have looked again at the submission that the Scottish Fishermen's Federation made to the Government last month. Not long ago I spoke to Mr. David Aitcheson, chief executive of the SFF. The Scottish Fisherman's Federation says that three things are needed if the Scottish fishing industry is to be put on an equal footing with its foreign competitors.
First, £5½ million is needed for an interest support scheme in order to cope with the massive and expensive accumulating debt burden that the industry carries at present. Secondly, £4½ million is needed as a fuel subsidy. It should be noted that while fishermen in my constituency have to pay 70p a gallon for their diesel, fishermen in other parts of the world, notably Canada, are paying only 20p. That must be particularly galling for some of our fishermen on the east coast of Scotland who are having to cope with the problems of the oil industry and the disruption that it is causing in their fishing grounds and their fishing ports. Thirdly, the industry needs £2 million for a minimum price scheme to firm up the protective prices that the fishermen receive for the fish that they land.
Those three items total £20 million for Scotland alone. I appreciate that the SFF. may have put its bill a little high, but, in fairness, the last time it asked for money it asked for too little. But when the calculations are of this nature it must be said that the £14 million figure is perhaps a little inadequate and a little too late.
The industry is in a perilous condition, and the Government cannot escape a measure of responsibility for the problem because they are responsible for the high level of interest rates and the high value of the pound, which has led to the cheap import blitz that has created such problems for fishermen in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
That the industry is in a critical condition is demonstrated by the fact that many fishing boat skippers have found it necessary literally to go on strike. They tied up their vessels a week or two back. These are not the sort of people who do that kind of thing lightheartedly. The situation has been critical, and it remains critical.
I know that the House has some extremely important business to deal with later. I should be the last person to want to delay that. Therefore, in conclusion, I take this opportunity to wish the fleet better luck and better fishing in the future and to wish the Minister of State good luck and continued good fishing in the Treasury's pout box.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I thank the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) for his good wishes. I hope that my right hon. Friends and I will be successful in that fishing operation. I also thank him for correcting one thing that I think was wrong in relation to some of the allegations made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes). The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian made it quite clear that the amount of money for which the Scottish Fishing Federation was asking—which I certainly understood to be for the Scottish industry as a whole—was just over £20 million, and not £35 million for six months. I accept that. It was not a question of £35 million for six months or for the industry as a whole. Therefore, I start by correcting some of the misapprehensions which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North might have been spreading around the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I think that the Minister has to be corrected in his correction. I was speaking about £35 million in a full year, whereas the submissions here are speaking about £20


million over six months, so I am not that far out.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: The hon. Member's arithmetic was rather interesting to follow. It seemed to get very quickly up to £70 million. I am simply going by the facts of the case put to the Government, which were confirmed by the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian. That is on the record. The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian is correct about the case put to the Government.
I should like to deal with one or two other matters which I regard as misapprehensions. I believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is totally wrong and is misleading the House in suggesting that it is only the fishing industry of the United Kingdom that is in trouble among the fishing industries of Europe. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will have read, even in the past 24 hours, press reports in British newspapers of, for example, French fishermen who prevented the landing in France of British visitors and tourists and others who are using car ferries, because the French fishermen are concerned about their industry. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman has met, as I have met, members of the Danish fishing industry—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) referred to this matter—who, in the area of Jutland, for example, where they have a tradition of industrial fishing, have been unable to fish in the way to which they are accustomed and have had to tie up vessels, probably more than any other section of any fishing industry in Europe.
If the right hon. Member for Down, South cares to consider the fishing industry of one country that is outside the EEC yet is within Europe, that of Norway, he will find that that country has to pay in aid to its fishing industry more than any other country in Europe. That does not indicate that merely by being outside the EEC one country's fishing industry is necessarily in better health than those of EEC countries. There is a more rigorous programme of scrapping vessels in Norway than in any EEC country. The Norwegians are talking not only in terms of scrapping in scrapyards. They have been sinking purse seiners at sea.
I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to get these matters right and to realise the problems of the United Kingdom fishing industry. By the aid that we are giving, the Government acknowledge that problems exist. However, such problems must not be seen in isolation from the problems of the fishing industries of other European countries, both within and without the EEC.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the hon. Genteman explain at whose expense we shall gain through the common fisheries policy?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I shall deal with that question shortly. It is not as simple as that. The right hon. Gentleman is good at asking questions in a simple and rather appealing way, but he does not see the subject in the round, nor does he see the different aspects involved. He oversimplifies problems and, in doing so, often reaches the wrong conclusion.
The right hon. Gentleman was wrong on two other points. I admit that our deep-sea fleet has suffered the most and that boats are tied up in ports and are rusting. However, that is not a product of the common fisheries policy. As Germany's deep-sea industry will acknowledge, it is the result of 200-mile fishing zones not within Europe but round other countries which are further away. That would have happened whether or not we were members of the EEC. The right hon. Gentleman should not ignore that.
I should like to turn to the more positive side of this issue. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will point out to the fishermen in his constituency that effective conservation measures cannot be obtained without international agreement. The EEC gives us an opportunity to achieve such measures. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is against the concept of the EEC. I shall not attempt to argue about the philosophy and wider arguments involved. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think about the drawbacks of EEC membership, he should recognise that before we were members of the EEC we tried to achieve effective conservation through international co-operation. The only result was that the stock around Europe and in the North Atlantic decreased inexorably year by year. Voluntary efforts did not produce effective conservation. One of the


United Kingdom's most valuable stocks,—the herring stock—was depleted to such an extent that fishing for that stock has had to be prohibited for a number of years.
International co-operation is necessary. Fish do not know about boundaries. The European countries do not enjoy 200-mile limits because of the median lines in the North Sea and in the Channel. We could not conserve our fish without an agreement with other countries. An extreme example might be salmon. Such a fish requires even wider conservation agreements with countries such as Greenland. By good fortune, that country, through its association with Denmark, is still a member of the Community. We therefore have an opportunity to obtain effective conservation measures for a fish that swims even further than most of the other species around our coasts.
We have tried voluntary agreements, but they have failed. Membership of the EEC gives us an opportunity to reach an agreement that will have the force of Community law behind it. If, as I hope, effective conservation is achieved, and if there is effective enforcement of that conservation, we shall have, for the first time, fishing agreements on the main stocks round the coast of the United Kingdom. Such agreements will have the force of Community law behind them. They are more likely to be enforced than any of our previous agreements. Whatever the right hon. Member for Down, South may feel about the EEC, he should recognise that in the narrow issue of fishing we have an opportunity for more effective conservation. That conservation is useful, and it will be to the benefit of our fishing industry.
The remarks of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) contained a number of misapprehensions. I share his concern about the organisation of the mackerel fishery, but I ask him to get his facts straighter. Already there is provision for reporting to the port inspectorate before our own vessels land their fish on the factory ship. I put to the hon. Gentleman again, but in more precise terms, the question I put to him when he intervened in my opening speech: would he rather see the Cornish mackerel going for 4p a pound for human consumption than for 2p per pound for fish meal? That is what

we are faced with at present. If we could spread that fishery over the whole year, how wonderful it would be. But, again, we are dealing with a living resource and we cannot choose just when we have that fishery. Nature has ordained the times of the peaks and the times when there can be no fishing.
In such circumstances, it is inevitable that at present the only major outlet—and it is about twice the value it would be for fish meal—is the one that the hon. Gentleman finds abhorent. I ask him to recognise what the alternative is if we do not have that outlet. It means that the fish will not go primarily for human consumption and there will be about half the return to the fishermen.
I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the organisation of the fishery, as he knows. I have seen some of the aspects of it at first hand. He also knows that I tried through a restrictive licensing scheme to get better organisation because in doing so we should get better longterm outlets for processing. The way the current licensing system has worked has not been conducive to the better longterm outlets for processing.
The hon. Gentleman also knows that some of my proposals have been rejected by the industry. We are producing a scheme this year not all that different from that of last year but containing certain elements which I hope will be incorporated in the long term to attain a more effective management of the fishery. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is scope for more effective management. It requires a different attitude not only from the Government but also from those who take part in the fishery. I hope to see developments in that direction. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I take to heart some of his criticisms about policing, and we shall do our best to organise that as best we can.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is not the alternative to selling or practically giving it away to the Russians for 4p a pound to leave a larger portion of the fish in the sea? There is worrying evidence that the total quantity of mackerel, at least around my part of the country, is diminishing rather rapidly.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I tried in our last debate on fishing to lay low the hon. Gentleman's misapprehension. Of course


I am concerned about over-fishing. The total allowable catch for that fishery had to be reduced by 10 per cent. again this year, and we have introduced a large conservation box in the South-West which is proving effective.
I ask the hon. Gentleman not to exaggerate the position. As I explained to him in our last debate, there were mistakes over the figures; there were simple arithmetical mistakes on the part of Customs and Excise in the way the figures were converted after the fish had been processed. It meant that the figures he had been using were not accurate in reflecting the total number of fish caught.
I turn to some of the points about structure which relate to the EEC documents. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) that there are, in this document, proposals which could cover the question that he raised on compensation for redundancy. In the discussions on this document, I shall bear in mind the points that he has made. I shall also bear in mind the remarks of other hon. Members on the question of structure. It is right that we should reserve judgment on the structure document until we know the outcome of negotiations on more important matters such as quotas and access.
On conservation, I have already mentioned the question of the pout box. We shall consider this very carefully in the light of the court judgment. This is a particularly important matter in that the extension of the box takes effect from 1 October, and some urgency is needed.
I was encouraged by the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East about conservation. He is right: we must maintain our right, even after a common fisheries policy is agreed, to apply our own measures in an emergency on a non-discriminatory basis if we believe that a particular stock or fishery is put at risk and if there are no common fishery measures. I assure the hon. Member that in the negotiations we shall try to incorporate that under the conservation measures.
On the question of quotas, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) was right. These quotas are fundamental to the whole CFP. We have

made clear that we believe that the illustrative figures are very unsatisfactory in a number of respects. But the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East is correct: we must be very careful not to jump too quickly to conclusions on the basis of the figures alone. One must look at the figures—the percentage of the tonnage—and then at the stocks that are important to our fishermen, such as haddock, whiting, cod, mackerel and herring. Our other stocks have nothing like the same value. The value of the quota proposals must be seen in the light of the stocks concerned.
Secondly, we must look not simply at the quantity figures but at the value. Cod is one of the most valuable resources. We shall certainly reserve our judgment on the figures until we know exactly where we are.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East moved an amendment, and I am quite prepared to accept it. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Myles) that it does not make sense to tie oneself to particular figures when one is negotiating, but I believe that the words of the amendment have been carefully chosen and I hope that the objectives that the Opposition have put in their amendment will be achieved during the course of the negotiations. We must wait and see how the negotiations progress.
Finally, I turn to the question of aid. I thank hon. Members for the way in which they have welcomed the announcement tonight. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North for the concern that they have expressed recently about the uncertainty at Hall Russell. I hope that my announcement tonight will enable the yard to continue in certainty as a result of the two very good, well-designed and well-built vessels which, I believe, are well up to time.
The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr Henderson) asked about the distribution of the aid. The House rises tomorrow, and we considered that we should announce now the aid available to the industry rather than wait for the details. Had we delayed until the details had been worked out, the House would


have risen, and it would have been discourteous of us. I am, therefore, afraid that I cannot give the information requested.
Another factor is equally important, and it was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock) in his brief but effective speech. He mentioned the important consultations and partnership between the industry and the Government. If they are to mean anything, in this aid package as much as in relation to the common fisheries policy, the industry has a right to be consulted on the way in which the aid is applied. Officials of the Fisheries Departments will be approaching representatives of the fishing industry tomorrow to try to arrange a meeting next week in order that the details of the aid package can be worked out. Once that is done, we shall make sure that the information is made available.
The debate has been useful and wide-ranging. We have covered the long-term problems of the industry in relation to the renegotiation of the common fisheries policy. I am grateful to the House for suporting the line that the Government are taking, which gives us much greater strength in the negotiations. I am also grateful to the House for welcoming the aid package.
The leaders of the fishing industry have as had a task as the Government in trying to steer the fortunes of the industry and keeping those at the grass roots informed. I pay tribute to their response-

bility. In relation to the aid package and the common fisheries policy, I hope that their counsel, wisdom and responsibility will be understood and respected by those at the working end of the industry.
The interim aid scheme is important. We must keep the industry viable while negotiations on the common fisheries policy continue. In the House and in the industry I hope that we shall keep our eyes on the longer-term negotiation of the common fisheries policy. Only by doing so can we ensure that we have an effective industry for the future.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, agreed to.

Resolved.
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. R/2988/75, R/2519/77, R/2520/77, R/1514/78 and 8959/80 on structural policy, No. 8583/80 on catch reporting, No. 8957/80 on conservation, No. 8958/80 on 1980 quota allocations, No. 9047/80 on quota allocation criteria and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's unnumbered explanatory memorandum of 21 July 1980 on access; and supports the Government's objective of a satisfactory overall settlement of the revised Common Fisheries Policy in its own right at the earliest possible opportunity which takes adequate account of the need to conserve and safeguard fish stocks and of the overall requirements of the United Kingdom fishing industry, and in particular, maintains the need to secure exclusive access within 12 miles, preferential access within 12 to 50 miles, and an overall share of fish for United Kingdom fishermen which reflects United Kingdom losses incurred in third country waters and the contribution made by United Kingdom waters to total European Community fish resources.

Orders of the Day — OPPOSITION PARTIES (FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I inform the House that there is an error in the motion on financial assistance to Opposition parties and in the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton). The figure reading "£1,925" should read "£1·925".

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas): There appears also to be a misprint in the Government motion.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry if I did not make that clear. The error is in the Government motion, and it is repeated in the amendment.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I did not wish to be party to a resolution giving £1,925 for every 200 votes. I am well disposed to the Opposition, but not that well disposed.
I beg to move,
That the Resolution of the House of 20 March 1975 shall have effect from 1 July 1980 with the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph 2 of that Resolution:—
'That for the purpose of determining the annual maxima of such assistance the following formula shall apply:
£962·50 for each seat won by the party concerned plus £1·925 for every 200 votes cast for it at the preceding General Election, provided that the maximum payable to any party shall not exceed £290,000.
The effect of the motion is to increase the amounts of financial assistance payable to Opposition parties to assist them in carrying out their parliamentary business. At present the amounts payable are £550 for each seat won by the party at the last general election, plus £1·10 for every 200 votes that it received. In order to qualify, a party must have at least two Members elected to the House as members of that party at the preceding general election, or have one such Member and have received at least 150,000 votes at that election. There is at present a maximum party entitlement of £165,000.
If the House approves the motion, the amounts payable under the formula will be increased by 75 per cent. to £962·50

for each seat and £1·925 for every 200 votes. The maximum amount payable to any party will also be increased to £290,000.
The scheme was first introduced in 1975, when the formula was fixed on the basis of £500 for each seat won by the party plus £1 for every 200 votes. These amounts have previously been increased from their original level only once—by 10 per cent. in February 1978.
I must stress that the purpose of the scheme is to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their work at Westminster. The use of this financial assistance is therefore confined by the original resolution to paying for expenses incurred in relation to a party's parliamentary business. Subject to this limitation, its allocation is at the party's discretion. I understand, however, that the bulk of the money goes towards research and secretarial assistance and in staffing the Whips' offices.
In practical terms, the leader of the Opposition party, or a person deputed by him, makes his quarterly claim to the Accountant of the House, who makes out a cheque in accordance with his instructions. If the party concerned wished the amount payable to be made over in some other way, that could be done, provided that the way in which the money was to be spent could be properly certified as being within the terms of the 1975 resolution—that the expenses had been
incurred exclusively in relation to that party's Parliamentary business".—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1934.]
I must stress that this has nothing in common with propositions for helping parties with their activities outside Westminster.
Obviously, like all other administrative and office expenses, the costs of the support services that this assistance is designed to meet have risen sharply in recent years. The proposed increase will help to meet these increased costs, which are inevitable if the Opposition parties are to carry out their parliamentary duties. Our constitution has long recognised the position of the Leader of the Opposition as part of the parliamentary constitution, to the extent that he is paid an official salary.
I need add only that the scheme and the proposed addition to the amounts


payable in no way represent any change in the Government's position with regard to the provision of public finance for the general activities of political parties or towards the recommendations made in the Houghton committee's report in 1976. The Government have made it clear, and we make it clear again tonight, that we have no proposals to extend financial assistance to political parties in that way. The proposal is accordingly no more than an updating of existing provisions in the light of increased costs since the amounts payable under the scheme were last fixed.

Mr. George Cunningham: As the Leader of the House said in moving the motion, the Government are extending the facility first presented to the House in 1975 by the then Labour Government to take account of some degree of inflation since then.
When it was put forward in 1975, this proposal, while not commanding 100 per cent. support in the House, commanded the support of all parties in the House. That went, too, for the increase in the scales that was adopted in 1978 and put forward by the Labour Government at that time.
It is now well over two years since the increase was effective in 1978, and it is therefore time for an increase to be made once again. Coming to the figures, it should be noted that the revised figures in the motion do not take account of the degree of inflation that has taken place since I January 1975, when the facility first began.
If we took account of inflation since I January 1975 and then took as one of the main figures the maximum figure that any party might receive, it would have to be about £330,000, whereas the motion provides for a maximum figure of only £290,000. That ratio is reflected in the other figures in the motion.
We are saying that the real value of this assistance, compared with what was decided by the House in 1975 and effective from the beginning of that year, will not be similar to what we decided at that time but will be between 95 per cent. and 87 per cent. of the real value of what was decided then.
Therefore, there is a real fall of about 12 per cent. or 13 per cent. in the value of this assistance. Since, as the Leader of the House said, most of that money, irrespective of which party is using it, is expended upon salaries, the real value of it is even less than the figure that I have just stated, because the rise in salaries has been greater than the rise in general inflation.
I make two points to the Leader of the House on an obscurity in the motion. I am sure that we are all clear about what is intended, but there is an obscurity that in the future we should do something to clear up. It is not absolutely clear from the terms of the motion that the maximum for the present year. 1980, is to be made up of one half-year at the rate—if I may put it like this—of £165,000 maximum and one half-year at the rate of £290,000 maximum. I take it that it is the intention that the maximum this year will be composed of the two halves—half of the old rate and half of the new rate.
Secondly—and this problem has occurred in the past—there is the situation that can occur, and did occur in the last Parliament, where a party breaks up after an election. In the terms of the motion that we passed in 1975, we did not address ourselves to that difficulty. It occurred in the last Parliament. I mention it because it is a problem that has cropped up. No solution to it was available in terms of the motion that we passed, and, since the terms we adopt in the case of a resolution of the House are usually less carefully drafted than in the case of legislation, it is something to which we should address ourselves. That is not to say that the Labour Party would have any interest in that point. I raise it only in relation to the party that had that problem several years ago.
As the Leader of the House said, this money is available only in connection with an Opposition party's parliamentary duties and not for its work outside the House. It should be noted that in the use of these funds the party is answerable, like the users of all public funds, to the Public Accounts Committee, which could, if it wished, investigate the use of these funds to satisfy itself that they were being used for the purposes covered by the resolution.
When the predecessor motion was going through the House in 1975, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), the then Conservative Opposition spokesman, pointed out very firmly that one of his colleagues, who was concerned about the proposal, was
wrong in discerning a new principle".
He pointed out that what was being done was to extend a principle that had already been adopted of extending assistance from public funds to the Opposition and making that accord more with the needs of modern times. He referred to it in 1975, when it was a newer idea, as
this modest little proposal".
The right hon. Gentleman argued that
the means of support available to the Opposition have dwindled steadily as against the steady and, to my mind, loathsome growth in the power of the Government",
and that
We must have some means of redressing the balance."—[Official Report, 20 March 1975; Vol. 888, c. 1920–22.]
That thought was repeated by the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr, Pym), who is now Secretary of State for Defence, when, supporting the increase in the funds in 1978, he said:
After nearly three years, it is reasonable in all the circumstances to propose this very modest increase. Plainly it will leave the Opposition parties much worse off in real terms than they were then."—[Official Report, 13 February 1980; Vol. 944, c. 199.]
He was referring to the time when the facility was first introduced, at the beginning of 1975.
That once again is the situation. We are in exactly the situation that was approved by the Conservative Party in 1975 and approved by the Conservative Party in 1978. It is time to make this modest increase, which does not take full account of inflation, and I hope that, in the interests of the proper working of the House, the House will give support to the motion that the Government have introduced.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: I am unhappy at this proposal, for a number of reasons. I cannot imagine that the proposal that Opposition parties should receive money from the taxpayer and that they should have removed from them the responsibility of raising their own money

through the persuasiveness of their representatives in the country would ever have been introduced had it not come about that in 1975, when the Labour Party was in power and it realised that the Labour majority was likely to totter, one of the agreements that was struck with minority parties for their support at a time of voting difficulty was to give financial support to the minority parties for the assistance that had been forthcoming.
Until 1975, the House had gone along for hundreds of years without providing taxpayers' money for the parties. One of the ways in which the Labour Party was allowed to maintain its strength, although it was clearly in difficulties when raising finance, was to allow the substitution of contracting out for the contracting in of trade union levies.
I can recall many Conservative Party conferences at which Conservative Party supporters expressed their puzzlement at the way in which we continued to allow the trade unions to raise money for the support of the Labour Party although trade unions are in essence not meant to be political parties. The only reasonable answer was that if the contracting-in proposal was substituted for contracting out, so little money would be raised for the Labour Party that it would have great difficulty in maintaining a viable Opposition.
That was the concession that Parliament and Conservative Governments made for Opposition parties that were in substantial difficulties. As long as that concession remains, it seems wrong that the taxpayer should continue increasing the contribution to minority parties.
There is no reason why any concession should be made to minority parties for the purpose of keeping the present Government in power. One has to concede the logic and the sense of the taxpayer providing support for the Leader of the Opposition because his is a constitutional position in our political life. To go beyond that support is an excess that is not necessary for Parliament to provide. My right hon. Friend, in moving the motion, said that the contribution was restricted to the use of parliamentary facilities and did not go towards sponsoring political parties outside this place. The reality is that the less money a political party needs to spend on the running of its offices in this


place the more money it has available to spend on the running of its activities outside this place. It is not a sufficient answer to the criticisms that some of us feel to say that this matter is restricted to the activities of the House.
The matter does not stop there. In 1975, the facilities provided for research and secretarial assistance were nothing like the generous facilities that we have now decided to provide for our secretaries and research assistants. In that regard, the State contributes more money to all parties than ever before. The matter that gives me greatest cause for concern is the fact that we propose to increase the contribution to minority parties at a time when we are asking the nation to undergo a period of considerable economic restraint.
I notice that Opposition Members below the Gangway have thought it consistent with their party's approach, when in Opposition, to attack the Government at every stage for every cutback in public expenditure. Yet the Government have reached the end of their first year successfully, I believe most people in the country would say, in terms of their manifesto. The Government have made a substantial contribution towards the fulfilment of the manifesto. About 60 per cent. of our promises—

Mr. Edward du Cann: Seventy-five per cent.

Mr. Lawrence: It rises higher. That has been achieved in the face of substantial opposition—from among our own ranks apart from others—to the cutbacks in public expenditure. People in the country will be puzzled, so strong has been the Government's attitude towards restricting the rise of inflation, to read that we should be voting at this late hour and at this late day in this Parliament—when many hon. Members have still not recovered from two nights, or certainly one night, of irresponsible opposition—an increase of pay to Opposition parties in this fashion. It is inconsistent with the spirit in which the Government have conducted their approach to the manifesto.
It is all very well to say that this power was given in 1975. We have an entirely new Parliament. I regret that an opportunity has not been given to the full House, at a time when all hon. Members are present and not laid low by the acti-

vities of the past week, to consider whether it still supports the substantial change in the constitutional position of Opposition parties in the House.
For all those reasons—I do not seek to detain the House with a long argument—this is contrary to the traditional principle. It is unnecessary as a means of encouraging minority parties to raise their own funds, it is unnecessary in the light of the contracting-out provisions of the trade union legislation, and it will not look well when people read tomorrow that we have approved an increase in the expenditure of minority parties.

Sir William Clark: We should get this matter into context. It is interesting to consider why this money was voted in the first place. It was originally known as Short money. The then Leader of the House—now Lord Glenamara—introduced the idea that Opposition parties should get some subvention from the taxpayer.
Why should there be a subvention from the taxpayer? When a party is in Government, it has the resources of the Civil Service behind it free, but the party in Opposition has to do its own briefing and devilling and produce its own researches. It was right that in 1975 a certain amount of money should be allocated to the Opposition parties. I do not propose to deal with the minority parties. I shall talk about the two major parties, with no disrespect to other parties in the House,.
It is obvious that the concept of giving the Opposition the opportunity and the wherewithal to carry out certain functions is right. With respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), this has nothing to do with the running of voluntary parties. At one time, voluntary parties paid not only the whole of the Whips' office but the whole of the postage. Indeed, Members of Parliament paid the whole of their postage. Since then it has been felt that Members of Parliament cannot do their job properly unless they get certain facilities. Over the years, apart from the increase in salary that we might have had, we have been given free postage, a secretarial allowance, a research group allowance and a living-in-London allowance.
Let us ally that to the Leader of the Opposition. I point out that the Leader


of the Opposition is a Crown appointment. If it is thought right that the Leader of the Opposition should be a Crown appointment, of course he should have the back-up staff to enable him to carry out his responsibilities. It is nothing to do with running the political party.
In the past I had something to do with Central Office. I assure hon. Members that the running of the Leader of the Opposition's office was quite a task. I do not know how many letters the Leader of the Opposition gets today—I am not talking about whether the party has done well—but on a topical issue he can receive 400. 500 or 600 letters a day. How can the Leader of the Opposition, with one salary and without back-up staff, answer all those letters?
In addition to the Leader of the Opposition, Shadow spokesmen need to be briefed. That means having a tremendous number of research staff. I assure the House that when this scheme started and the Conservative Party was receiving £150,000 a year, in no way did that cover the whole cost of the Leader of the Opposition's office. I agree that it was a contribution to it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton raised the red herring of the Houghton committee. I do not agree with the Houghton report. I remind my hon. Friend and other hon. Members that the Conservative Party gave evidence to the Houghton committee against taxpayers' money being spent on political parties in the country. I emphasise the words "in the country" because there is a difference between running a party in this House and running a party in the country. If a party in the country does not have the support of the voters in the country, it will not receive the subscriptions. If the party in the country could not raise sufficient funds to run that party, it might mean that its policy was not in tune with what the public wanted. But that is an entirely different matter from running a party in the House.
I am told that it is essential for me, as a Member of Parliament to have a secretary and a research assistant. The allowances for such assistance have been updated over the years. If it is essential for me to have a back-up staff, surely it is essential for the Leader of the Opposition to have a back-up staff. If we say

that the Leader of the Opposition should not receive this money, we should take away the allowances for secretarial and research assistance for Back Bench Members of Parliament.
I hope that we do not fall into the trap of thinking that the sum of £290,000 —all parties have accepted the principle of a subvention payment for running the office of the Leader of the Opposition—is right. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) suggested that it should be £330,000. I think it should be slightly more. The principle has not changed—

Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Does not my hon. Friend accept that some of the allowances and some of the recent awards made to Members of Parliament were contested by some hon. Members as being too high? Is he not making an argument for the inflationary increases that we have said cannot be sustained at our present production rates?

Sir W. Clark: I think my hon. Friend will agree that my record shows that I am not in favour of increasing public expenditure. I accept the fact that some hon. Members resisted the increases for secretarial and research allowances. But we must remember that in the two-party system that we operate in this country the leader of any Opposition party is always in a more difficult position than the Prime Minister and Ministers simply because they have the whole weight of the Civil Service behind them. With respect to my hon. Friend, this matter is not in the same context as that of whether some hon. Members thought that we should not increase secretarial and research allowances. I do not think that many hon. Members would say that those allowances should be abolished.
One accepts the premise that it is essential for the Leader of the Opposition's office to be serviced. However, the £290,000 on offer at present will in no way pay the whole of the expenses of that office. I note that the Shadow Leader of the House nods in agreement. Any sensible person must know that this is so, bearing in mind the number of secretaries, researchers and so on that the Leader of the Opposition needs.
I hope that none of my hon. Friends will resist the motion, for the simple


reason that it is fair. If the allowance were rising to £500,000, I would be on the same side as some of my hon. Friends. If it is being increased by only about 82 per cent. of the inflation rate, that is right.

Mr. Tim Brinton: Two things occur to me. First, I believe that my hon. Friend has obscured his argument by referring to the secretarial and other allowances that Members of Parliament get in the same breath as referring to an allowance that we are now discussing in terms of political parties and their activities here. They are totally different things. We as Members receive an allowance—we can argue whether it is too much or too little—to service our constituents on a non-party political basis.
The terms of this proposal are that a political party or two political parties—however it may turn out—receive money from the State in order to oppose the Government. If that is so, it will only perpetuate in the minds of the electorate who elect us the feeling that there is an alliance between the establishments of both main parties so that, whoever's turn it is, it is Buggins's turn. I do not believe that the electorate believe that this is real.

Sir W. Clark: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I think that he is barking up the wrong tree, because there will be a loss on the £290,000. It will go towards paying for the secretaries and the research that the Leader of the Opposition must carry out, and it will not in any case be used for the propagation of party philosophy. Party philosophy is not necessarily a question of cash. Opposition Members propagate the philosophy of whatever they believe in. Conservative Members do exactly the same.
There are many people who write to the present Leader of the Opposition but who probably vote for me or for my hon. Friend. There is no party point in it, but those letters must be answered by someone.
Let us not get this matter out of context. I am delighted that the Conservative Party is in Government. I hope that it will be in Government for many years, although I know that that will not go down well in all parts of the House. But we must ensure that no party that is in

Government, with the whole weight of the Civil Service behind it, should be in a position to squash an Opposition. We must see that the Opposition have some resources in order to fight whichever Government are in office.
I have tried to give the history of this matter and to put it into context and take it out of the business of parties. It has nothing to do with parties. This concerns running an office which, I repeat, is a Crown appointment. As a Member of Parliament, I am paid by the taxpayer. The Leader of the Opposition is also paid by the taxpayer. As a Member of Parliament, I get certain allowances for secretarial services and so on. Those allowances are updated now and again. The Leader of the Opposition has far more responsibility than I or any other Back Bench Member. His office should be serviced sufficiently without the need for subsidies. The £290,000 will not pay all the Leader of the Oppositions expenses, no matter which party he comes from.
I hope that my hon. Friends will not resist this measure. The Conservative Party has accepted the principle and precedent. The Government are only updating the provision. The full effect of inflation has not been taken into account. I should have thought that this was a very reasonable proposition.

Mr. Stephen Dorrell: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) will not misunderstand me when I say that for the first time I have listened to a speech from him that might almost have been made from my notes. It was a new experience for me, and I very much enjoyed it.
My hon. Friend was right to concentrate on the key issue, namely, the type of democracy that we want. When the Government present measures and arguments, they are supported by the massive resources of the Civil Service. Whether one is a Back Bencher or an Opposition Front Bench Member, one does not have access to the same amount of support.
I should like to put my right hon. Friend's proposal and the principle of giving State funds to the Opposition


Front Benches—which the House accepted in 1975—into the context of the series of measures that have been proposed during the past 15 years. Such measures have tried to right the balance between a Government Front Bench that is generously supported by the Civil Service and other hon. Members who are less generously supported.
Select Committees were set up to provide new ways of eliciting information from the Civil Service. They gave Back Bench Members a new basis from which to strengthen control over the Executive. In a way, that is part of the same process—in which my right hon. Friend played a notable part—of improving our control and influence over the Executive. Like the measures before us tonight, the Select Committees helped to strengthen Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South was right to point out that giving funds to the official Opposition party would emphasise the importance of the role of that institution in our two-party system. Its role is vital if we are to continue to produce the parliamentary compromises that are the stuff of the British constitution. We are often told that the great strength of our system is that an alternative Government are ready to take office after a general election without having to form a coalition or go through a formative phase. That would not be a strength if the party was unable to do the research necessary to build up its programme and to formulate policies.
If we provide Opposition parties with funds during the Session we shall be buying a public good. That public good is that Opposition parties will be well informed and will have the means necessary to establish their case. They will then be able to base their cases on fact rather than on mythology. That will be a public good, and it will be rightly paid for from the public purse.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Nothing that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) distinguishes between the justification for paying money to the office of the Leader of the Opposition and that for paying money to political parties in general.

He seems to think that democracy can be assisted and strengthened by the provision of public money for the activities of political parties. I suggest that if he thinks a lot more about this he will realise that he is treading on very dangerous ground.
I now refer to what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) said. We are not talking about money being provided for the office of the Leader of the Opposition. If we were, and if it were expressed as such, perhaps an argument could be made for saying that this was a special fund which applied only to this purpose. That was the brunt of my hon. Friend's argument. I understand that there may be something to be said about that. There is a precedent that a stipend is now paid to the Leader of the Opposition. However, the resources of the office of the Leader of the Opposition are drawn from the party that he represents in the House. Indeed, it is said that what is paid is not enough, and so he has to be subsidised in his activities by his party.
The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), as I understand it, is that in principle this cannot be justified and that in a healthy democracy a political party should be able to provide all the funds that are necessary to carry on those activities. The problem here is one of attitude.
I believe that the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is the treasurer of the Labour Party. Did he not recently publicly ask the leader of the Labour Party to arrange that the money paid from this fund should go to him and that he should be responsible for its disbursement to the Labour Party as a whole? The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that to be his view. If that is his view, quite clearly he, as the national treasurer of the British Labour Party, believes that that money should be paid for the purposes of the Labour Party. That, no doubt, is the argument. If so, it completely contradicts the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton.

Mr. Joseph Dean: My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is entitled to express that opinion, but he does not speak for the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

Mr. Stanbrook: I fully appreciate that. I have some sympathy with that point of view. The fact is that the hon. Member for Tottenham is the national treasurer of the Labour Party. As I understand it, he has been elected to that post by the Labour Party, by whichever form of democracy in which it indulges. It seems to follow, as at present advised, that it is the view of the national authority of the Labour Party that the money should be paid to that source.
If we had an undertaking from the Opposition or the Labour Party that in future all the money would be paid to the Leader of the Opposition personally or in some form that ensured that it stayed within the office of the Leader of the Opposition, I concede that there would be an argument. Even so, I do not agree with it, as in principle we should not use taxpayers' money to benefit political parties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton was wrong continually to emphasise that money was being paid to minority Opposition parties. That is not the point. The money is being paid to political parties. Should political parties in a democracy—whatever kinds of parties they are—be subsidised with public money? We are not talking only about the Labour Party. The members of the Liberal Party find it difficult to raise money, as, no doubt, do the others. However, the real argument concerns the Labour Party. From the time of its origins, it has never persuaded itself to go to the doorsteps to raise money from small subscriptions, jumble sales, coffee mornings, and all the 1,001 activities by which money is raised for political parties in a democracy.
That is the healthy way in a political democracy such as ours. That is the way in which the Labour Party should raise its funds, instead of attempting to resolve its difficulties by going to the taxpayer cap in hand and saying "We cannot carry on our party organisation without a subsidy from public funds—without help from you. It does not matter that you do not happen to support our party. You have to pay because we have arranged it that the law says that money should be paid by Parliament itself."
That attitude is completely wrong. The Labour Party's attitude should be that of bringing itself up to date and

running and financing its organisation in the modern, practical, healthy, democratic way, which is the way followed by the Conservative Party.

Sir William Clark: If the logic of that argument is followed to its conclusion, is it not wrong consequently to give a Back Bench Member of Parliament a secretarial allowance? Why not take that away?

Mr. Stanbrook: I take that point from my hon. Friend. I am rather surprised that he should go on emphasising this. There is all the difference in the world between assisting an individual Member of Parliament, no matter what his party, to represent all his constituents and do a more effective job, enabling him to spend more time on the interests of his constituents, and providing money to a political party.
This has nothing to do with assistance that may be given to individual Members of Parliament to enable them to do their jobs more effectively. It is not done in the context of political organisation. It is not given to them because they happen to be Conservative, Labour, Liberal or supporters of any other political party. It is given because they as individuals want to do their best for all their constituents.
I do not believe in the theory that a Conservative Member represents only the Conservatives in his constituency. If he does, he is a rotten Member of Parliament. But that is said constantly, especially by the Liberals, because, of course, every Liberal Member does his best for all his constituents. Let us get away from that silly nonsense. Every hon. Member tries to represent all his constituents, and it is perfectly proper that he should be assisted financially in this way, not only by his salary but by the provision of services.
That is a completely different argument in principle from what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South has been saying, which is that the political organisation to which an hon. Member belongs should be enabled to become more efficient by being paid money not through individual Members of Parliament but direct to party funds.
I suggest that if my hon. Friend really believes that the equivalent of this money


should be paid as allowances to individual Members we should say that within each party every individual Member of Parliament should pay a percentage of what he is paid by way of salary to his party.

Sir William Clark: That is all right.

Mr. Stanbrook: Let the parties be financed from the pockets of Members of Parliament.

Mr. Joseph Dean: And a percentage of their outside earnings.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is not my point. My argument is that if money is provided to an hon. Member to do his parliamentary job, it is from that fund that it would be quite appropriate for the money to go to that parliamentary job being done by his political organisation. What an individual Member may earn outside this place has nothing to do with this argument. The argument is how to use public money in this respect.
When we talk about public money in this context, we must define the objective that we have in mind. I suggest that the only objective must be that of improving the efficiency and quality of the service given by each Member of Parliament. That argument is wholly unrelated to the argument behind speeches made in favour of this propostion, namely, that taxpayers should be brought in when a party is so inefficient that it cannot even raise enough money to run its own leader's office and that the taxpayers should make up the difference.
There are many respects in which money is needed in party organisations. The Labour Party, for example, does not have nearly enough full-time salaried agents. The question is how the money for them is to be raised. One thing to be said for the national organisation of the Conservative Party is that, by and large, we manage to raise enough money to pay for our own organisation.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: An Opposition party does not have to take the money if it does not want to. Why did the Conservative Party take it in 1975?

Mr. Stanbrook: I was unfortunate in being a Back Bencher and, therefore, was not at all responsible for the decision

that was taken. It was a mistake in 1975, and I said so at the time, so I cannot be accused of inconsistency.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Did you vote against it?

Mr. Stanbrook: I do not remember.

Mr. John Ward: Will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that perhaps with the new research assistant allowances, or the increase in the secretarial allowance that is supposed to cover the research allowance as well, Members who so wished could contribute to a communal fund in their party so that research could be undertaken on a party basis and, no doubt, cover all the wonderful things of which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) spoke?

Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged to my hon. Friend, because that was the point that I was trying to make. If individual Members of Parliament want to improve their efficiency in this place as a whole, it is for them to provide for that better organisation out of the remuneration they are paid from public funds—in other words, by some sort of levy.
My main point is that we could provide a far better service to the people of this country if only we as political parties concentrated on improving our efficiency. That means that the Labour Party must get over its problems. It has relied for so long on trade union funds that it has never got into the habit of getting on to the doorsteps and raising money in small amounts.

Mr. Spearing: Nonsense.

Mr. Stanbrook: No doubt individual constituencies and individual Members of this place do that to some extent, but there is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of Labour Party funds comes from huge corporate subscriptions from the trade unions. It used to be alleged by the Labour Party that the Conservative Party raised its funds for the most part by donations from big business. That was an interesting thought, until gradually one got information about these matters. Nowadays it has been discovered that the opposite is true and that the majority comes from individual subscriptions.
My own constituency is a good example of how things should be done. My Conservative association raises £14,000 per annum, through individual annual subscriptions and through many hundreds of small fund-raising events, such as coffee mornings, jumble sales and garden parties. From that sum my association is able to pay £2,000 to Central Office for its needs, and yet at the same time it pays a full-time agent a salary of £4,000 or £5,000 and carries on all its other activities. That is done only by harnessing the energies of about 7,000 or 8,000 members of the association. I wonder how many Labour Members have that sort of membership in their party organisations. That is the democratic and effective way of raising funds.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: It is quite unwise to allow any hon. Member, on either side, to make such mistakes as the hon. Gentleman is making. I have been close to a county constituency party for many years, as its secretary, and I assure him that not one penny of the assistance that we are discussing goes to constituency or local parties. That is a fact.

Mr. Stanbrook: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but I never suggested that. What is being suggested is that the money that we are discussing goes to a particular need within the Labour Party—namely, if we accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, to the office of the Leader of the Opposition. If that is so, none of that money goes to the purpose of the party as a whole.

Sir William Clark: I do not think my hon. Friend realises that a certificate has to be signed each quarter stating that a certain amount of money has been expended for the direct expenditure of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a red herring to say that some of this money could be used for national party politics. We must get our facts right before we try to distort them.

Mr. Stanbrook: That is fine, because my hon. Friend is giving a perfect example of the sort of tactic that accuses someone of saying something he never said and then says how wrong he must

have been. I have never suggested anything to the effect that my hon. Friend has criticised me for.
In principle, the services of the Leaders of the Opposition should be met by revenue raised by the party as a whole. I was not suggesting that money raised for the Leader of the Opposition goes to the constituency parties. My argument was that the Labour Party relies too much on institutional financing from the trade unions—a sort of block financing. It would be far healthier and far more democratic if the Labour Party as a whole drew its funds from sources like the many that the Conservative Party fortunately is able to use.

Mr. Michael Brown: Would my hon. Friend care to consider the system that we have in the Conservative Party? For the most part, the constituency associations have a quota, which they are expected to pay to Central Office to assist with its management. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Leader of the Opposition, presumably as many letters were sent to her in her capacity as leader of the Conservative Party as in her capacity as Leader of the Opposition, and those letters went to Central Office. Would it not be reasonable to expect party headquarters to provide a sum of money from voluntary funds to assist the Leader of the Opposition—Conservative or Labour—deriving those funds from the individual subscriptions and contributions, which I know my hon. Friends are expected to pay to their associations?

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that point, which is of great assistance to me in my simple argument that political parties should be responsible for raising their own funds and for applying those funds to all their purposes, not merely in the country as a whole but also in the House. If it were suggested that we need more money to do our jobs as individuals, I would say "Fine, we are paid to do that job." Each hon. Member is paid to do his job, just as the Leader of the Opposition is paid to do his job. Surely, if the Leader of the Opposition needs more money it should come from the same source—from the individuals in the party organisation.
If the Labour Party wants to provide more funds to the Leader of the Opposition, let it do so. I simply do not understand the argument in principle, and I am surprised that so many Conservatives should find that there is any merit in it.

Mr. John Townend: Could my hon. Friend give us the benefit of his legal training and help a simple man like me to understand the argument that in some way sums that are made available to the parliamentary party—the official Opposition—are not being used for party political purposes? Surely, if that money were not made available the funds would have to come from the political party in the country. If it is relieved of that liability, surely it must be the case that the funds are, at least indirectly, being used for party political purposes.

Mr. Stanbrook: I accept that point, too. It is sad for me, believing as I do in parliamentary democracy, to realise that the Labour Party is so wrong about this matter and is depriving itself of the strength and moral justification that could be derived from obtaining its revenue from individual members. The Labour Party gets so much in funds from great institutions, such as the trade unions, yet now, when extra support is needed for the party in this place, it does not go back to the party organisation and tell its supporters to get out on to the doorsteps and ask for more money. It says that the taxpayer must pay up.
This was the argument put forward in 1975, and I am very sorry that the leaders of my party at that time saw fit to accept it. One of the strong arguments put by Conservatives at that time was that we had to go along with this because it was in the interests of the other parties. There was the suggestion that it would not be fair for the Conservative Party to object to this system because, after all, the poor Labour Party, which is not as efficient as the Conservative Party at raising money, would suffer.
The fact is that the Labour Party must go back to square one and begin raising its money in a democratic way through the individual subscriptions of the many thousand members that it could have. There is a fiction that every local party that has 1,000 members affiliates with the

Labour Party, but many affiliate anyway, even though they do not have the requisite number of members. I am pretty sure that the local party in my constituency does not have 1,000 members, and yet it is affiliated. Surely, the Labour Party should decide to raise this money properly and honestly instead of calling on the taxpayer. It should decide to be independent and rely on its members. In that way not only would it get more members; it would be happier, healthier and bigger, and it might even win a few more elections.

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I am pleased to be called in this debate in order to discuss the question of financial assistance to Opposition parties. I come to this debate fresh as I am a new Member of this Parliament. I did not have the opportunity to participate in the debate on 20 March 1975. However, I read the reports of it with great interest. I have listened closely tonight to my hon. Friends the Members for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) and Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). I believe that they have the better of the argument. Having listened to the entire debate, I believe that those who oppose the motion have the better of the argument.
The main reason why I believe that the House should reject the motion was touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunnngham) in supporting it. The motion is not dealing so much with principles, which were debated in March 1975. We are debating uprating the figures to take account of increased costs.
At the beginning of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you drew our attention to the error. We are talking about £1.925 for every 200 votes. I have not used a slide rule, calculator or abacus to do the calculation, although before the end of the debate we may need an abacus. However, I do not believe that that error would have affected the sums payable to the main Opposition party—namely, £290,000—although it would have affected the sums payable to minority parties, of which there are a number.
It is strange that we should be considering uprating the figures to take account of inflation. I am driven to consider why we have had such high inflation under the previous Government and


this one. The sooner the rate of inflation comes down, the better for all of us. Why is inflation so high? Some hon. Gentlemen suggest that it is all the fault of the wicked capitalists and entrepreneurs, who set the price of their goods and services higher than the market can bear. Some would believe—although, I hope, none in my own party now—that in some way trade unionists are responsible for inflation. It seems to me that neither of those groups is responsible for the inflation that is causing the pressure on the figures in the formula. We must look elsewhere for the motive force responsible for the increase in the figures.
There are those in all parties who say that the motive force is the price of oil and that by increasing it the oil sheikhs are pushing up other prices, including the prices of the goods and services on which the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues are spending their money, to expand their opposition in the House. I shall later dwell on whether the money is well spent. We must examine public expenditure thoroughly, looking not only at the quantity—and I do not believe that to date we have had the figure for the quantity of public money that is to be spent—but at the quality.
I take the silence of the House to be consent—

Sir William Clark: We are listening with avid interest.

Mr. Proctor: I am sure that my hon. Friend will support my central point about inflation and will agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) that inflation is not caused by wicked capitalists and entrepreneurs or by wicked trade unionists. Neither of those categories is providing the upward force, and nor are oil prices. We cannot look either to the scapegoat of the Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) in the early 1970s—that it was something peculiar to do with world food prices.
The cause of inflation, the real motive force responsible for the upping of the figures in the motion, is the very politicians who at one time or another will benefit from the motion. I view that fact with a great deal of concern and suspicion.
If as politicians we can index-link our own error and our own inability to control inflation—the major economic issue of our time, as the Conservative Government rightly see it—and if we can isolate ourselves from the pressures upon us, we shall have less incentive, less of a motive force ourselves, to control the very inflation of which these figures are the outward sign.

Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend has made a valid point about indexation. The argument has been put forward by both Front Benches that this is almost a technical motion to index according to inflation. Will my hon. Friend consider the position that faces both parties outside the House? From my knowledge of the Conservative Party's finances, I am conscious, at a time of inflation, that the party is subject to inflationary pressures. We have not been able to obtain income by taking advantage of indexing, because we are dependent upon voluntary contributions. I suspect that the Labour Party treasurer will report to the Labour Party conference that inflation has eaten away that party's funds. It is a valid point.
Is my hon. Friend aware that both political parties outside the House, at a time of inflation, have to cut their coat according to their cloth and cannot resort to the magic formula, as the Leader of the House is doing tonight, of indexation in order to solve our problems?

Mr. Proctor: I am thankful for that intervention, particularly because this is the first time that I have followed my hon. Friend in such a debate and because we are the first graduates of the university of York to serve in this House. I have been listening—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) must relate his arguments to the motion on the Order Paper. The university he attended has nothing to do with it.

Mr. Proctor: I am sorry if I have tried your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but this was a first opportunity and I thought that it was a polite and courteous reference to the intervention of my hon. Friend. I fully accept the points he made.
However, I turn to the second major reason why it is dangerous—

Mr. George Cunningham: rose—

Mr. Proctor: I shall give way in a moment. I wish to proceed to the second part of my speech.
Are political parties and politicians popular? Political parties, it seems to me, are not the most popular bodies in our society. Therefore, I think that it would be wrong for the State to continue to give even more money to these unpopular creations. On grounds of unpopularity—

Mr. Cunningham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Proctor: In a moment. On those grounds, I would argue that no money should be given to these unpopular and extraordinary beasts in our society.

Mr. Den Dover: Before my hon. Friend leaves the issue of inflation, I should like to ask a question. Was it not in February 1978—three years after the original allowances were set—that they were increased, and then by only 10 per cent.? We heard that from the Leader of the House. Twelve months later, under the Labour Government the rate of inflation came down. Would it not be better and more sensible to throw out this measure and rethink this matter in the next Session rather than approve increases of between 75 and 80 per cent.? There is a direct correlation.
It is entirely wrong if we increase the allowances to Opposition parties and gaily increase other allowances and public sector pay. We cannot hope to bring down inflation if we embark on that course. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far better not to agree to these vast increases and to think again? Surely, it would be better to let the House have time to consider the issue during the Summer Recess. We can hope to bring down inflation by reducing increases of this sort.

Mr. Proctor: I agree with my hon. Friend. I am interested in his suggestion that any increase of the allowances should preferably be linked with a future general election. I said at the outset that in principle I am against any payment to Opposition parties, whichever parties they may be and however many they may be.
When the debate on this issue took place on 20 March 1975, a distinguished

Labour Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), moved an amendment that was accepted by the Chair. One might say with hindsight that it is unfortunate that I or one of my right hon. or hon. Friends did not consider tabling a similar amendment. The effect of the amendment was that the resolution should take effect after the general election, namely, after October 1974—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, It would be quite wrong to go back to a debate that took place some years ago. We are dealing with the motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Proctor: I am dealing with the motion before us, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am suggesting that it might be a good idea if the Government, even at this late hour, were to think again about whether they should bring forward the motion. They might consider introducing it after the Summer Recess with a view to its taking effect after the next general election. That would provide our constituents with an opportunity to consider the view of our stance on the propositions that are set out in the motion.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my hon. Friend recognise that some of us have voted down the indexation of increases in the allowances of Members of Parliament in various forms? That is what I find obnoxious about the motion. Will he address his remarks to the idea that politicians, whether they happen to be in Opposition now or on the Government Benches and thus potential Opposition Members, should be prepared to be judged by results? If they succeed in reducing inflation, they can be prepared to accept some of the benefit.

Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful, helpful and precise interruption. I have joined him in voting down measures of indexation of the sort that he mentioned. If our constituents could pack the Strangers Gallery tonight, they would take rather a dim view of the motion when inflation is still high. The date of I July is a rather odd one for the motion to take effect. It might have been more appropriate to have selected the beginning of next year, when inflation will be far lower than it is now.

Mr. Keith Wickenden: There are many of us who accept the basic dislike of a taxpayers' subsidy to political parties no matter how it is dressed up. Nevertheless, we feel some diffidence about the fact that when the Conservative Party was in Opposition it took the money offered to it by the Labour Government. Can my hon. Friend help people like me who were not Members of the House at the time to know how we can salve our consciences?

Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend, like myself, was not a Member of Parliament at the time of the March 1975 debate. We were not able to participate. Opposition Members shouted during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington, asking whether he had voted in that debate against the principle of financial assistance to Opposition parties. My hon. Friend had a momentary lapse of remembrance. I have the Division list here. I can assure my hon. Friend that he registered two votes on that occasion against the principle in two separate Divisions.
I see the difficulty, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Mr. Wickenden, for hon. Members who served in the last Parliament. It is not a difficulty that affects 80 or so of the newer hon. Members who are sitting in this Parliament for the first time. Nor should it be a difficulty for certain members of the present Administration. It should not be a difficulty for my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, correctly on that occasion, voted against the principle of the measure. I am sure that he will join us tonight. Six other present Government Ministers went into the Division Lobby against the matter on principle.
My central argument is whether the increase of financial assistance to Opposition parties will be well spent. If public money is being spent, it is necessary to look at the record of the Labour Party in Opposition during the last 17 months. There may have been a few hiccups this week when Labour Members knew that the recess was creeping up and were able to stomach one or two late nights. For the rest of the time, it has been rather milk-and-water stuff. Labour Members have spent most of their time in Opposition

opposing not the Government but each other. That seems extraordinary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington raised the important point of public money being spent on parliamentary duties as opposed to party duties. He was eager to gain a distinction—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed this day.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

COMPETITION

That the Anti-Competitive Practices (Exclusions) Order 1980 (S.I., 1980, No. 979), a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 July, be approved.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PAUL LEHAIR (DEATH IN CUSTODY)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Waddington.]

Mr. Fred Silvester: I wish to raise the question of the death of Paul Lehair, the son of a constituent of mine. On 19 June 1979, Paul Lehair, a young man aged about 20, was convicted of taking away a motor vehicle, theft and breach of a suspended sentence connected with theft. He was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and taken to Wormwood Scrubs. Five days later he was dead.
Paul Lehair was placed in a cell with Vincent Smith. Smith had been sentenced to life imprisonment at the Northampton Crown court for the murder of Nicolais Feodorus, who had been attacked by Smith on a park bench in Oxford and stabbed and beaten to death. Although Smith pleaded not guilty, the court found otherwise, and by the time Paul Lehair joined him in his cell he had served 18 months of his sentence.
At Smith's trial for the murder of Paul Lehair, the prison doctor, Dr. Elmo Jacobs, said that Smith had a history


of psychiatric problems since he was eight. He was an adopted child of a couple who claimed that he had been in trouble since he was a child. He was in and out of institutions most of his teenage life because he was unmanageable in ordinary schools. Dr. Jacobs, according to the press at the time, said:
Smith has a severe and persistent disturbance of personality with abnormally violent conduct which diminishes responsibility. This is called a psychopathic disorder.
Almost immediately upon his first committal to prison, Paul Lehair was placed in the cell of a young man aged 20 who had a long and known history of psychopathic disorder and was in prison for a brutal murder.
The character of the man was known to the prison authorities apart from his original offence. At the trial it was stated that a senior prison officer had expressed the fear that Smith would
perpetuate acts of violence which could result in the death of either a prison officer or an inmate.
Smith apparently complained of homicidal tendencies in 1978 and again in 1979. Defence counsel at Smith's second trial, apparently without challenge, stated that
there was a series of acts of violence on the part of Smith, both concerning prison officers and other prisoners at Wormwood Scrubs. In one he started smashing things up and attacked a prison officer with a fork.
Three days after Lehair joined him, Smith told the prison authorities that he disliked Lehair
because he did not wash
and asked for him to be moved. Although it was said at Smith's trial that plans were made to move Lehair, in fact nothing was done in time and on the night of 23 June 1979 Smith strangled Paul Lehair with the sleeve of his pyjamas.
Paul Lehair's mother—Mrs. Irene Travis—is a constituent of mine. She came to see me after Smith's trial.
Before continuing with the story, I want to make a general point. Nobody connected with this debate wants to harass the prison staff. I understand the difficulties that they have in making a judgment, particularly in overcrowded conditions. We have therefore throughout this matter tried to conduct our inquiries

quietly. We made no attempt to raise the matter while it was sub judice.
Smith was convicted on 28 January and his solicitor, Mr. Geoffrey Miller, got in touch with me on 31 January. Since that time we have both been pressing the Home Office on a number of occasions for answers to our questions. We have accepted the need not to be unfair to those making the inquiries and we have kept our representations private, but we have got very inadequate results. Neither the solicitor nor I got any answers, and Paul's mother has heard nothing since immediately following his death.
On 5 June I was getting nowhere. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister what this means. Following the murder last year there were extensive enquiries. At Smith's trial the inquiries were still not complete after six months. The recorder at Smith's trial then asked the Home Office
to look very carefully into this matter.
The Home Office said that it would take note of the recorder's remarks.
I had been promised a reply, which had still not materialised 12 months after the murder and five months after the trial. After the Under-Secretary's latest stonewalling letter, which I received on 9 June, I rang his office and made clear that if I did not receive a reply the following week I would raise the matter in the House. The reply came the following week, on 17 June. I may be forgiven for believing that that was a strange coincidence.
The delay that accompanied this inquiry inevitably raises suspicions that there was something to hide. When it arrived, the answer said that the investigation was complete and—I quote from the letter:
We have come to the conclusion that it could not reasonably have been foreseen that Vincent Smith would behave as he did and we are satisfied that the prison authorities acted reasonably in deciding they should share a cell.
My question to the Home Secretary in the House on 24 July received the same reply.
I am here tonight to say that that reply was quite unsatisfactory. According to my hon. Friend's reply of 21 July, the governor, in deciding who should share a cell, takes account of all relevant information, including the inmates' history and character. I understand that a


newcomer would normally be placed in a position—possibly in the prison hospital—for his character to be assessed. It would be most unusual to allocate a young man on first sentence for a minor offence to the cell of a man with a record since the age of eight, and even more unusual to put him in a cell with a man with pronounced and well-known violent tendencies. Even if it were not expected that he would murder again, it is inevitable that we should question whether it was a normal and reasonable coupling. In this case, apparently almost immediately, the decision was taken to mix Smith with Lehair—in other words, to mix murder with a minor offence.
I realise that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may be receiving advice to protect his legal position, as Mr. Travis's solicitors have claimed general damages and some minor damages in connection with the funeral. It is inevitable, however, that the stone-faced attitude of the Home Office in this matter should make Mrs. Travis think in terms of compensation, especially in view of the distress that she suffered immediately after the death. At that time, although it was subsequently explained, she was distressed by the non-attendance at the funeral of a prison representative and by the way in which Paul's belongings were treated. But compensation is not the main issue. The central issue is that Mrs. Travis has had no reasonable explanation. Indeed, apart from the original letter from the deputy governor, she has had no word at all.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will use this opportunity to answer some questions. How can he claim that it is reasonable to place a new and minor offender in the same cell as a person with a record such as that of Smith? Does he still maintain that view? If so, is he saying that it would be allowed to happen again? Will he publish the report, or at least describe its findings tonight, instead of hiding behind the straight bat that we have had from the Home Secretary so far? What was the nature of the inquiry, and what changes have happened since, both to the procedures and to the prison staff? Will my hon. Friend reconsider his attitude towards the claims for compensation to Mrs. Travis?
The case of Paul Lehair is a deep personal tragedy. It is also a matter of public concern.
No one wants to engage in a witch hunt, but if we as a party and personally are to give strong support to the police and the prison service, the other side of the coin is also important. We must make certain that remedial action is taken when things go wrong. I hope to hear from the Minister tonight that that has happened.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Leon Brittan): I share the deep concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) about what occurred in this case. It is always extremely difficult to understand and to accept the view which may be expressed that when a tradgedy of this kind occurs it does not necessarily follow that individuals or even necessarily the system are at fault. Therefore, I do not criticise my hon. Friend for the strong terms in which he has spoken.
However, I am afraid that I am not able to accept that the attitude of my noble Friend and others who have been dealing with this matter can fairly be described as stone-faced. That is not so at all. There has been a thorough investigation into what has occurred, and I welcome the opportunity of setting it out as I see it, although I accept that it represents a viewpoint to which my hon. Friend, at least at first blush, will not readily adhere.
The basic facts of the case are that on 19 June 1979 Paul Lehair was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for taking and driving away, theft, breach of a suspended sentence and having articles in connection with theft. He was taken to Wormwood Scrubs young prisoner wing and placed in a cell with Vincent Richard Smith, another 20-year-old young prisoner who was serving a life sentence for murder. On the morning of 24 June, Vincent Smith rang his bell to use the toilet. He was let out of his cell, went to the toilet and then told an officer that there was a body in his cell. Paul Lehair was found to be dead, with bruising around his neck and blood on his face, ear and pillow. Vincent Smith was subsequently charged with murder. On Monday 28 January 1980 he was found guilty of manslaughter, on the ground of diminished responsibility, by strangling Paul Lehair and was committed to Broadmoor.
Vincent Smith's previous history and behaviour are clearly quite central to this case. He received his sentence of life imprisonment for robbery and murder in 1977. He was sent to Wormwood Scrubs young prisoner wing for medical treatment and allocation as a life sentence prisoner. While there, in April 1978, he attempted suicide; he had also attempted suicide while on remand in custody in 1973. He did not settle easily at Wormwood Scrubs, and he was placed on report for disciplinary offences, including attempted assault on an officer and attempting to disrupt an exercise period.
In November 1978 he was sent to Aylesbury young prisoner centre, but was returned to Wormwood Scrubs on 5 December to undergo an operation for a self-inflicted injury to his hand and remained there because of continued concern that he would attempt suicide and a consequent need for location in an establishment such as Wormwood Scrubs that had full-time medical cover. Shortly after his return he was segregated from other prisoners in the interests of good order and discipline, on suspicion of bullying another inmate. With the transfer of that inmate, he was returned to normal location and settled reasonably well. Instructions were given that he should share a cell only with an inmate unlikely to be bullied by him or to join him in bullying others. He had a succession of cell partners, none of whom complained of bullying. Paul Lehair was the last of these.
I turn now to the various questions to which this case has, absolutely understandably, given rise: first of all, relating to the general principles of mixing prisoners together; and, secondly, concerning the particular circumstances of this case.
First, should Vincent Smith as a life sentence prisoner have been located with a 20-year-old serving a short sentence for non-violent offences? I must point out that Vincent Smith was also aged 20, and it is the practice so far as possible to keep separate from adults all prisoners who are under 21 when sentenced. There are in fact about 100 young prisoners serving life sentences.
Then there is the question whether life sentence prisoners should be kept separate from non-lifers, short-termers, non-

violent offenders or conceivably any other category of prisoner. In fact, it is normal practice to mix them only with other long or medium-termers, but where there are particular reasons—such as the need for full-time medical cover in Vincent Smith's case—they may have to be held in accommodation which caters primarily for short and medium-termers. The Government's view in any case is that it would be a mistake to impose any general prohibition on cell sharing.
The prison system has at any one time to cope with quite a high concentration of people with serious criminal records serving a variety of sentences, and, whilst it is clearly necessary that the weak should be protected, we think that this should continue to be done on an individual basis: through segregation from others in the interests of good order and discipline or for their own protection; by transferring in order to separate inmates who have come into conflict; or by using discretion when placing inmates in cells together.
A general prohibition based on a simple criterion such as the receipt of a life sentence would not be the most appropriate way of dealing with the problem. There are, after all, life sentence prisoners who do not pose a threat in prison conditions whilst there are other inmates who do, and to establish a rule based on length of sentence or any other indiscriminate criterion would not necessarily prevent another tragedy and, indeed, might obscure the importance of other factors. Therefore, one must consider the propriety or otherwise of the judgment in a particular case rather than work on the basis of a general rule.
Turning now to the particular circumstances of this case, we have considered with great care, in the light of the governor's report and what was said at the trial, whether the danger presented by Vincent Smith should have been recognised, and appropriate action taken, by prison staff before Paul Lehair died. In so doing, it is obviously right to look solely at what was known about Vincent Smith before the date of the death of Paul Lehair.
First of all, Vincent Smith was a convicted murderer, having robbed and killed a drunken man in a park in 1977. That he was capable of killing is not, therefore, in doubt. But there are over 1,500


life sentence prisoners in the prison system, and not all can or should be treated throughout their sentences as likely to repeat within prison offences which may have been committed in a wide range of circumstances and for a wide range of reasons. They are not treated entirely like other prisoners. Each is kept separate from others during the early stages of his sentence while he undergoes assessment. But the decision on the subsequent location and treatment of each of them is based on his general character rather than his offence alone. I believe that that is the right approach to adopt in such a difficult matter.
I turn, therefore, to what was known about Vincent Smith's mental state and dangerousness. When he was tried in 1977, a consultant psychiatrist reported to the court that he was suffering from a psychopathic disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1959—that is to say, he was suffering from a persistent disorder or disability of mind which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct. However, the consultant also stated that Vincent Smith was unlikely to benefit from placement in a special hospital. In fact, the question of making an order under section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959, committing Vincent Smith to hospital, was not raised at the trial. When he was in custody, the medical staff at Wormwood Scrubs considered that he was a psychopath. However, they did not consider that his mental disorder was of such a nature or degree to warrant his detention in hospital.
Furthermore, the fact that Vincent Smith was a psychopath does not necessarily imply that his condition required his separation from all or some other prisoners. A psychopath is essentially a person who persistently displays antisocial behaviour but which is not necessarily manifested in physical aggression to others. The management of a psychopath varies according to the characteristics of the individual. Although Vincent Smith had certainly shown aggressive tendencies in the early part of his sentence and had committed various disciplinary offences, his last such offence, prior to the killing of Paul Lehair, was in mid-1978. He had been segregated in January 1979 after being suspected of bullying but had given no trouble since then. In

the light of all the reports made on Vincent Smith in the court and since his conviction, as well as of his behaviour in prison, it was the clinical judgment of medical staff at Wormwood Scrubs, based on their knowledge and experience of this type of inmate, that he was not homicidal in a prison setting.
In prison, therefore, Vincent Smith was undoubtedly aggressive and troublesome, a nuisance and with a tendency to lead astray or to bully other inmates. But I am afraid that such behaviour is not uncommon amongst his age group in custody, and his conduct was not such as to suggest to the prison authorities that he would go beyond this fairly well-established pattern seriously to injure or kill somebody. That that judgment proved wrong with hindsight does not mean that it was not well founded, made in good faith and reasonable to make at the time.
I turn now to what consideration was given to Paul Lehair's safety, in the light of what was known about Vincent Smith, before they were placed in a cell together and to what was known of relations between them after this was done. As I have said, Vincent Smith shared his cell with a succession of prisoners, and none complained. Paul Lehair was chosen to share his cell because of his size—he was 6 ft 3 in tall—because he was mature and because he was not institutionalised. It is not the case that no thought was given to his safety.
In the few days that these two prisoners shared a cell, there were two incidents which assumed some significance subsequently. The first was that on the day before Paul Lehair's death. Vincent Smith requested a change of cell mate, making offensive remarks about Paul, although not threatening violence. The officer to whom this request was made said that this would be arranged on the Monday morning, and Vincent Smith seemed at the time quite content with this. I think that in the circumstances the officer's response was sensible and reasonable. The second incident, on the same day, was that Vincent Smith made remarks to other prisoners indicating that he did not like Paul Lehair and had hostile intentions. Those remarks assumed significance to those other inmates, and were reported to staff only after Paul Lehair's death.


Therefore, obviously, it could not be taken into account in forming any decision whether they should immediately cease sharing a cell.
There were, therefore, a whole series of points in this case at which a different decision might have been taken. In view of the tragedy that occurred, it hardly needs underlining that we all wish a different decision had been taken. But the decisions taken by the staff were reached in good faith and after proper consideration of Vincent Smith's history and character as well as the characteristics of Paul Lehair. There was not oversight or failure to think about the consequences, still less any hard-heartedness or lack of concern.
By the time of Paul Lehair's death, the prison system had had over 18 months' experience of Vincent Smith in custody. There is no doubt that during that time he was a troublesome prisoner, but I am afraid that the trouble he caused was not unusual in a prison setting and, even in retrospect, if one analyses his behaviour over that period of time, troublesome though it was, one sees that it did not betray evidence of homicidal intentions.
In saying this, the last thing in the world that I want to do is to give the slightest impression of callousness or lack

of concern about Paul Lehair's death. That would be a totally false impression and does not represent the attitude or position of anybody concerned with this case in the Home Office or elsewhere.
The whole matter has caused us great concern, but at the same time, great as that concern is, we have a duty to look clearly and dispassionately at what went wrong, however terrible the consequences were. We cannot assume blame where blame does not properly arise merely because of the tragic consequences or decisions which, with hindsight, and only with hindsight, ought to have been taken on a different basis.
I should therefore like to repeat the regrets that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already expressed about Paul's tragic death. If I may say so, I welcome the opportunity of adding my own condolences to his family. However, I must repeat that, in the light of an assessment of the situation that I have tried to give to the House with candour, I cannot accept that the Home Office is at fault or legally liable for his death.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to One o'clock.